Free Market Forever

May 16, 2012

Why Porn is Essensial for World Peace

Even if it’s true that porn reduce your libido, it’s actually good for world peace. Who need males killing each other because each want too many real girls?

We could see it in a different way.

Porn allow us to have higher standard.

We no longer just want girls. We want the cream of the crop. We no longer want marriage. We want to be in control. To have something that make her do it. Carrot.

And perhaps some stick.

Now I am not suggesting rape.

Say you’re not married to her. Say she leaves with you. Where would she be if she stop performing? Now that’s sexy. To keep shelter on top of her she need to keep “performing”

Also remember that your biggest problem is not girls don’t want you. Your biggest problem is competitors.

So one natural ways virtually ALL humans do in ALL countries is to actually block competitors. They become cockblockers.

Properly understood, this can work to your advantage. All those guys richer, smarter, taller, than you, are cockblocked by religious conservative. Bill Gates can’t just hoard women.

Do you even ever think why abusive relationship like forced marriage is more politically correct and acceptable than sugar babies for example? It’s cockblocking. The more healthy the relationship is, the more people want to prohibit it.

Unfortunately cockblocking works against you too. Properly understanding that will help you see the narrow path to genetic salvation. When to take advantage of cockblocking and when to go through it.

Only peacocks have their reproductive success fully decided by females’ consent. Either peacocks or humans in a totally libertarian country, which doesn’t exist.

May 8, 2012

Marriage is Retarded

This is the most idiotic comment I have ever read in wickedfire.

What is sexist? Am I sexist if I just wanna bang chicks rather than dudes? We are all sexists. Our parents are sexist. If they aren’t then you wouldn’t exist. Think about it.

How in the fucking earth a wife deserve half of her husband’s wealth? Who decide? You?

Why 50%? Why not 49? Why not 48? What’s so awesome about number .5?

Actually this is the core of what marriage is all about. Nonsense opinion, or irrational beliefs of bigot govern your relationship. Someone believe that the girl deserve half of your wealth and somehow that’s what the deal is. Another person believe that women shouldn’t marry men with different race/religion and somehow it’s that person, rather than the women, that can decide who she ended up with.

Men are not equally rich, and women are not equally pretty, and somehow, the “fair” price is half of the men’s wealth.

I mean, what’s the fair price of a chair? Well, it varies right. Depending on the quality of the chair. The wealth of the buyers don’t usually matter a lot though buyers tend to buy more expensive chairs. What’s the fair price of a car? Same thing. Usually richer guys buy more expensive cars. Richer guys do not pay more for the same car. It doesn’t make sense. If anything, richer guys have more cars.

Imagine if car sellers sell cars proportional to the man’s wealth? That car sellers will lose businesses quickly. The same way, women wanting half of billionaires’ wealth will have far harder time to get billionaires. Settle for $100 per session or $100k per baby no matter how rich the man is, and she’ll be getting better deals. Somehow this more market based deals are prohibited.

If anything, richer men should pay less than poor men. Women already prefer the rich even if the richer men offer the same $100 per fuck. Why does the rich has to offer $1k and the poor offer less? Why not let the pussy choose?

Finally something I agree with. Pussy doesn’t mean vagina. Pussy means women. Because that’s all she’s about. I wouldn’t hire any women that don’t realize she’s a pussy. Such women can work somewhere else.

And yes I am learning something. Everybody wants to be the pimp. The real pimps are much more preferred by hot babes. That’s why we have so many laws against pimping. To kick out rich better more efficient pimps that actually give hoes/wives/womyn/women/whatevver and johns/husbands/men what they really want rather than what societies say what they should want.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB people in the world
  • powered by phpBB define yahoo
  • powered by phpBB functional alcoholism
  • powered by phpBB legal
  • powered by phpBB find people search
  • powered by phpBB history of education
  • powered by phpBB disease model of alcoholism
  • powered by phpBB middle school science competition
  • powered by phpBB of matter
  • powered by phpBB how to care for

April 18, 2012

Who You Are is More Important Than the Actual Deal

I really don’t understand you guys.

If you have a daughter, don’t you want your daughter to end up with the best of the best? Millionaires, billionaires or someone with high IQ? If you have a son, do you want your son to end up like Beatty Chadwick? Do you want your son to get married at all? What do you want for your sons or daughter anyway. I want to know my self.

How the relation works out is secondary. It could be casual sex. It could be sugar babies. It could be formal marriage. It could be religious marriage. He could be her boss (as long as it’s the actual owner rather than just supervisor). Who care?

People concentrate so much on what kind of deal a woman get. Marriage, then good. Prostitution then bad. Free sex, then somewhere in the middle. Bosses, then exploitation. Have to share, then bad. Move to richer country to find a mate then really really bad.

All those are secondary. I think most women and most father of women care more about WHO the man is, and not WHAT the exact deal is. The exact deal must not be too bad and I personally think that marriage is one of the most stupid deal.

However, WHO the man is, that is, how rich he is, is obviously far more important than other factors. Is he rich? Is he handsome? Is he tall? Does he speak C++? What’s his IQ?

Most of the women that are trafficked to europe have that in mind. Will the white male that fuck her be more handsome taller and richer than the cavemen that propose marriage to her back home.

If they can choose, they’d rather marry a rich smart tall handsome male. However, if they can choose between being a sex worker for a rich smart tall handsome male and be a wife of some poor guy back home, we know what they choose. Who the man is override what the deal is, in most circumstances.

The same way if I approach a woman, WHO the women is, namely how pretty she is, is what’s important. She can be on top. She can be submissive, or dominant, who care. Is she hot?

I don’t care if a man worship the earth my daughter walk on. If he’s poor, he has to get rich first.

Have you approached a woman? No matter how polite you are, if you’re poor, they don’t even look at you. If you’re rich, then you just approach them casually and tada….

Rich women do not need money. They still prefer the rich anyway for the same reason men prefer the pretty. At least that’s what I would prefer for my daughter. A very rich man. If my daughter got 2 proposal, one from a monogamous middle class and another from a billionaire playboy magnate, I would advice her to pick the billionaire magnate. Just make sure he’s really a billionaire as he said.

If I can reproduce my self by cloning, I wouldn’t need women at all. But hei, the most natural way is the cheapest cost effective way :)

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB best way to save money
  • powered by phpBB legal questions concerning wills made by ex husband
  • powered by phpBB women shoes
  • powered by phpBB origins of medicine
  • free market and prostituion
  • Prostitution actually helps maintain marriages and relationships
  • powered by phpBB women\s medical group
  • powered by phpBB ideal health
  • powered by phpBB division of child support services
  • people with high i q avoid marriage
  • male sugar babies
  • hot prostitution maRKET
  • high iq tend to free markets
  • rich men dont want sugar baby marriage

April 3, 2012

Knowing Romance Help Me Understand Dumb Girls

I’m with you here. I try to avoid the Romance section on Wattpad. Usually in published novels the author can do a good job with it, but here on Wattpad, they’re all the same. My questions are these: Why do the main characters always have to be rich? Can’t a guy be attractive without a “perfect tan and an eight-pack”? Why do the characters have to hate each other at first? Why does the guy always have to save the girl? How come the guy’s always a jerk, and the girl’s always a good-girl? Why can’t they ever wait until after marriage to have sex? Why are the female characters always so dang weak? Isn’t there a single girl on Wattpad who finds sweet, smart, and sensitive guys more attractive than players and jocks?

Hmm… Interesting

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB women playing with them sells
  • powered by phpBB hard science

March 24, 2012

Why it’s Simple and Accurate to Just Presume that Everyone is a Psychopath?

I talked to a social liberal. She said she knows personally many politicians. Politicians are not psychopaths, she said. They honestly believe that drugs are bad for you. That’s why they prohibit it. They honestly believe that prostitutes are forced. So that’s why they’re against it.

Also they need votes and that’s what most voters honestly believe.

You know what. Maybe she’s right. Then again, maybe muslim religious leaders honestly believe they honestly save you from hell fire, when they beat ahmadiyah movements up for undermining their authority.

Then again, maybe ugly women honestly believe women are being oppressed when they prohibit prettier women from staring in porn.

Maybe single males actually believe that no women would want to share when they prohibit sex outside life long monogamous marriage. I know. That’s what I actually believed when I were single.

Maybe the thugs that stab you in the back and take your wallet honestly believe that they are performing appendix removal operation for you.

Who care what they believe? If you pay attention that they may be right, you will end up having to argue with millions of millions of total nonsense that somehow justify their acts to you.

Notice that all those strange beliefs follow the same pattern. It justifies acts that believe them. Those are acts that we usually called evil, like using force and fraud or limiting individuals’ freedom. There is a reason why people entertain such beliefs in the first place.

After all, how do they believe all those nonsense in the first place anyway? Simple. Those nonsense reduce the amount of hostility they will get for harming others.

Why shouldn’t they? If I beat people and I said I want money, I would have to face the cops. If I beat people and says it’s God’s will, and somehow the crowd buy it, I get less enemies. It’s toward my best interest to say it’s God’s will. In fact, it probably doesn’t hurt much to actually believe it’s indeed God’s will if that can help me convincing others more. Who knows, many people actually want to see somebody got beaten up. They just need a good fairy tales to justify it.

It’s their best interests to entertain it. It’s not to your best interest to entertain it.

Presuming they are psychopaths and not bother entertaining their nonsense allow you to see clearly what you should do. Do not let those people have power over you. Once people have power over you, it’s game over.

Like most psychopaths, politicians and society make laws criminalizing consensual behavior. It’s simple. They want to enslave you. They want to have something to justify their acts when they they feel like beating you up. That’s what psychopaths do. They blame the victim. And may be they’re right. If you’re a coward that reward their oppression with compliance and benefit nonsense with attention, why shouldn’t people pick on you?

Then again, who says we’re not psychopaths?

I don’t go around robbing people and raping women. Does that mean I am not a psychophath? Who knows? Even if I were, I still wouldn’t go around robbing people and raping chicks. It’s not toward my best interest to do so. I may go to jail and stuff. There are saver ways to get laid and rich.

Imagine if ALL of us believe that we won’t be punished at all for robbing people and raping chicks. How many do you think will do that?

Say 5% would do it.  A reasonable number. Imagine if 5% people actually do that and get away with it and every body knows they get away with it. How many would do that the next day? I’d say 100%. In fact, normal people would have gone extinct and everybody would have been a psychopath if “evil” people will just get away with things. The truth is, quite often, evil people does get away with things.

History shows again and again that majority of humans will kill, slaughter, rape, and who knows what when they know they’ll get away with it. Genocide is the norm. Schindler is the exception. Most people are NOT like Schindler. Most are like Genghish Khan. In fact, most people are descendants of people like Genghish Khan. That’s the kind of people that are successful in the gene pool

Yes, like most psychopaths, people would just come up with something to rationalize and justify their acts. Just look what our bible teach: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081109135717AAEZFlL. That’s David, a hero in the bible, killing 100 Philistines just to collect their foreskins. What’s the difference between what he does and what psychopaths would do? Somehow, we just believe David’s justification. And that’s a moral compass most people believe in. Why shouldn’t anyone be psychopaths then? I’d be surprised if anyone is not a psychopath with that kind of moral compass.

David’s dilemma is simple. Usually killing is politically incorrect. Yet his cost and reward function changes. If it’s the philistines, killing is actually rewarding. He can get the king’s daughter. So great. What would any Dave do? Who wouldn’t start collecting those foreskins? Hell, till now many still think it’s actually a good act. If societies approve you for killing people, if killing people is profitable, what would a psychopath and normal people both do? Kill. So what’s the difference?

What about tortures? How many monks love torturing and raping naked women under pretext of driving out demons in the middle ages? What do we call them? Psychopaths? I like to call them majority. In fact, not realizing this is a very psychopathic delusion.

You can’t say someone is honest just because he hasn’t had a chance to steal. Power corrupts, people say. Here is an easier way to see that. People are always corrupt. When they don’t have power, they’re not corrupt for the simple obvious reason they can’t. Once they have the powah, they behave as what they truly are.

You don’t just give your car keys to some strangers and expect that they’ll return the car and pays you rent.

There are 2 ways to analyze most similar situations.

  1. People are not normally psychopaths. However, when they see and know that violent pays so much, they become a psychopaths.
  2. People are inherently psychopaths. They’re just not convinced that robbing and rapping are profitable yet and don’t have the guts to do it yet. Once they know, they do what all psychophats would do.

The difference between 1 and 2 is subtle and may be even mere philosophical. Both will correctly predict what people would do. Both prescribe that we need tough sentences against robbery if we want to deter people from doing it.

To be frank, #2 is simpler, and correctly predict the same act anyway.

In fact, I do not really understand the difference between homo economicus and psychopaths. What’s the real difference anyway? Aren’t we all? Show me some area where large number of people do not act like they are psychopaths. Maybe I can understand it.

In fact, most humans do presume that others are psychopaths. Why do we sign contracts? Why do we have letter of credit? Why not just send the good first and hope that the other guy is not a psychopath and will honor the deal? Because we know that the other side may be a psychopath too and hence, it’s toward our best interest that it’s toward his interest to pay up. Otherwise he won’t pay.

Even if the other side is not a psychopath, we also know that when they see that frauding us is profitable, they too will turn psychopaths and follow the same path.

If even in businesses, where relationship itself is an important social capital, we presume people are psychopaths that we put so many system to ensure that their selfish interests are properly aligned with ours, how much more we should do that in politic?

Anakin Skywalker: The Sith rely on their passion for their strength. They think inward, only about themselves.
Supreme Chancellor: And the Jedi don’t?

What would happen if you trust politicians even more than you trust your business partners, namely something more than at all?

History shows again and again what will happen to your wife and kids. Just look:

Who did that? Businessmen? No. Guess again. Politicians supported by the majority of the population. How can people that count on contracts in businesses could suddenly say, that we can trust politicians to decide on what’s best for our children and family?

Simple. Those people, are psychopaths too, just like the majority of voters. They don’t care about fairness. They don’t care about productivity. They just want a reason to justify robbing from the diligent and controlling the productive. The way to do so is to give power to politicians.

Just like an interviewed psychopath once tell how much he loves his wife that he beat up to death, social democrats also entertain a ridiculous delusion. That delusion is that somehow we can trust politicians, and they, are not psychopaths.

Fortunately, politicians are psychopaths too, and we know what’s the cure. Just bribe them.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB people from
  • powered by phpBB people in the bible

March 15, 2012

Biggest Market Distortion

Rich men have more houses, more cars, more yachts, but less kids. Why?

Simple. It costs far more for a rich man to produce and maintain kids than for the poor. The same car cost the same to the rich and the poor. The same house cost the same for the rich and the poor. Yet breeding and raising a kid is far costlier for the rich than the poor.

Some of the costs are natural. Rich men do want to spend more money for their children. However, a child need is limited. Once you spend $1 million per child, there’s probably nothing else you can do to make that kid any happier or more prepared to get rich and successful in real world.

However, for the truly rich, the extra costs are often artificial in a sense that government artificially inflate the cost.

Take a look at child support laws. It’s set proportional to a man’s income. Women cannot negotiate in advance how much child support she want. Perhaps the women prefer $20k per child per year from Tiger Wood than $20k per child per year from some poorer guy that make a total of $20k per year.

However, women can’t choose that. If Tiger Wood is the daddy, the court will simply allow women to sue for $1 million a year, for example. Most of those money will most likely not go to support Tiger’s child at all.

Another way Tiger Wood can prolong his stay in the gene pool is to get married. You know how costly it is for him.

Again, women may agree to do it for $20k per year with Tiger Wood than marrying a poorer guy that make a total of $20k per year. But if a woman agree to sell her self for $20k per year, it’s illegal due to anti prostitution laws. Marrying a poor guy that also pays $20k per year is legal. Why it’s up to government rather than the women, to decide terms of her sexual acts?

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

What about prenuptial agreement? Marriage is such a lousy deal making it more complicated is beyond the lawyer skill of most people, including the rich.

To me, all socialism, as produced by democracy, will be peanuts except one. Genepool survival socialism. Currently there is no legal way a billionaire can make 20-30 kids without risking bankruptcy or other financial catastrophe. Yet deadbeat poor fathers that can make 20-30 kids with impunity because no body is going to sue him and because even the risk of going to jail is far more acceptable for those poor people. Moreover, government actually pay for all his kids.

Yet if that same guy work hard get rich and then want to breed, things just got too costly.

If marginal cost of raising a kid is constant between the rich and the poor, then the productive will out breed the unproductive and all these redistribution of wealth we are bitching about will be peanuts.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB complaint for unfair abusive and deceptive collection practices
  • powered by phpBB food market
  • powered by phpBB get a car
  • powered by phpBB muslim food preparation
  • powered by phpBB planning a trade show

March 8, 2012

Why Marriage Sucks and Why Anything Outside is Good

Actually throughout history polygamy has been the norm. Even the xian holy book has stories of men in polygamist marriages desopite xians claim that a traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. The fact is that the traditional marriage is an arrangement between one man and more than one woman. I have 2 theories on why monogamy became the norm. 1. Men who were in positions of political authority or men who were wealthy wanted a lot of women for their wives so laws were enacted that limited most men to one wife and the men of the political class could have more than one wife at a time. 2. Somehow women convinced men that they should be limited to one wife who they would be faithful to for the rest of their life. I think it stands to reason that it is unlikely that a man came up with the idea of monogamy for all men. It had to have been a woman who came up wit that idea. It just is not natural for a man to desire one woman for the rest of his life. :D

Your #1 theory is correct. Wealthy males tend to have more women. We’re getting there. Then laws were enacted. Enacted by who? Political class? That’s correct too. Polygamy ration females to politicians and those they favor. See afghanistan.

#2 is complex. Democracy is mainly about FORCE, not people convincing something. Few things make sense with most political argument. I am not convinced that marriage is better than concubinage. But I faced strong social pressure to get married. We all are. As for wife convincing their husband. Well, many women (and men) don’t mind sharing. Polygamy and polyandry do occurs consensually if that’s what you mean. Also when voting, men and women tend to behave the same way. I may be a man, but I had  a daughter and sister, for example, that also influence my voting behavior. So it’s not exact.

I think anti polygamy laws attract most single male voters. Anti women trafficking laws is preferred by most ugly single female voters. I may be wrong. At the end it’s voters’ interest, not the interest of consenting parties that matter. There are more singles than studs. So it’s normal that studs always get voted down.

Xian book has stories of men in polygamist marriage. That’s obvious. Did I mention that ONLY western civilization practice monogamy? Xian’s book, Tanach, is written during monarchy era. The interest of large numbers of single male voters don’t matter there so they have no problem with polygamy. In fact, polygamy is NOT a problem everywhere else except in democracy.

I do think those who opposes polygamy has a case. Polygamy always correlate with tyranny (like in muslim countries), while monogamy always correlate with socialism (like in western countries). That’s why I think we should abandon all “gamy” and concentrate promoting free market alternative.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB people who have changed the world

March 7, 2012

Samples of Ideal Relationship

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/enrique-iglesias-reveals-why-won-t-marry-girlfriend-223315817.html

This is what all relationship should be.

Marriage actually give tons of incentive for breaking up. It’s like telling the girls now you can have all the fun with other men and the court will still force me to pay. Of course they break up. It’s what happen when you let government draft your contract. You got one messy contract designed to fail.

Outside marriage relationship is more stable. 11 years and still counting. Why doesn’t she got knocked up yet is beyond me. Enrique, try harder!

If Enrique start giving stuffs to his girl friend, I wonder if she’ll get arrested for being prostitute. Technically yes. But maybe europe is better than US when it comes to this.

Why bother reforming marriage laws? Just don’t get married.

February 28, 2012

Avoid Marriage

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 10:32 pm

http://sxmodels.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-men-increasingly-avoid-marriage.html

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
Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress

Loading...