Posts Tagged Money

A Religious Leader Demand $1000

Discover guaranteed proven new safe way you'll love and save money. 

YOU can EASILY Get girls/guys you want if you understand

Why rich smart males do not want to get married and why do unattractive people want everybody to get married?

or you can grab

Gene Pool Survival Guide with How to Learn Math e-Book for Maximum Saving

Written by world's #1 life guru. Also a mensa member that won international math competitions. There are ways to get what you want effectively. The most effective ways are almost always politically incorrect yet done by every winners. Math and common sense can see through important obviously true laws of life that most people will simply deny.

Knows the truth. The truth will, besides getting you laid and rich, set you free.

If you said he just want money, you’re caught for insulting others’ faith.

If you said the religion doesn’t require that, you’re caught for heresy.

If you just stop believing the religion, you’re caught for apostasy.

The issue is not whether God exist or not. The issue is we’re fed up kow towing to those who are useless to us.

Tags: , , , , ,

Women Study 101

AB: But the traffic doesn’t help me.  That’s the problem.  Either they comes and start putting pictures up holding their cocks in thier hand, or the women are trying to sell themselves for money, etc.  That doesn’t help me at all, just hurts me. ANd most of the traffic hits the home page and leaves so to Google it makes my site look like it is not interesting to visitors.
AB: Porn traffic is the worst traffic I can get.
AB: I appreciate you trying to help though.  Thanks for thinking about us.
T: very funny
T: so what with women trying to sell themselves for money. Isn’t that what all beautiful women do :)
AB: Yes, but not in that way.  Our women are more subtle ;)
T: I see
T: now it make sense
AB: Our women want a lifetime income, not a quick upfront one time payment :)
T: Straight from the horse mouth :)
AB: Yes, I’m married to one of them
T: You have married 5 of them and it’s correct all the time.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Rethinking Homo Economicus

There are many I can think of.

First of all the issue is not the homo economicus it self but how it is interpreted.

Humans are homo economicus (rational selfish), in a sense that stones are stonyeconomicus with the additive inverse of potential function as utility function.

The theory that stones want to minimize it’s potential energy correctly predict stones behavior on free fall and slippery slopes. The problem is that it’s simply not true. Stones do not have a will, let alone rational. If you interview Mr. stones, do you really rationally want to lower your potential energy, the stones don’t know. “Potential what?”

The same ways, humans are actually just automaton with little creativity. That rational creativity is actually a small part of humans behavior. Yes the idea that we have a utility function that we want to maximize correctly predict our behaviors (mostly under typical capitalistic settings). However, most humans do that by following their instincts and emotion rather than by being rational. Most humans are not aware why they do things.

Try reason with a hot girl on why she should sleep with you and see how far you go. Now just tell her how rich you are and throw money away for her buy buying expensive useless objects like flowers, chocolate, and lobsters. See if it works better.

Remember, if what you give is useless, then it’s romance. If what you give is useful, then it’s prostitution. Both works. The latter works too well that it’s illegal. Uhmmm… I am ahead of my self.

The same way try reason with voters and see how far you go. Now tell her how an almighty God died for their sins and want everyone to go to heaven unless they watch porn or have sex outside your pimphood’s terms and you’ll get your point across more.

Remember, if what you say doesn’t make sense, then it’s sacred religion. If what you say makes sense, then it’s force. Both works. The latter works too well that it’s politically incorrect.

Another flawed interpretation of homo economicus is the idea that we max out what we buy under the constraint of our wealth and income. A better model is that we max out what we buy under the constrain of our capability and power as in political power.

Hence, dictators and corrupt officials, that own nothing but control everything, will live happily. Their people that, in theory, own the country but control nothing will live miserably. Most economic class simply presume that ownership is controlship and treat deviation as special exception.

Another corollary is if we want to know what typical humans’ utility function is, we need to look at what people do when they have power, not when they’re rich. Under normal buy stuff under income constraint theory, we would think that happiness come from expensive hotel, traveling overseas, etc because that’s what rich people do. However the rich are often not politically powerful nowadays and hence not the one that can truly achieve happiness.

A better way to see what makes humans’ happy is to see what powerful persons, emperors, local thugs, or terrorists head get. That is. Own a harem. Prevent others from pursuing the same path. So huge part of happiness is in how well others are not happy.

If we want to incorporate that to homo economicus we would have to deduct others’ utility function out of ours. In a sense, we either see the obvious that we’re not just selfish but also bigotic. Another way is we simply incorporate bigotry into our definition of selfish, which is quite unintuitive. The last one is Milton’ Friedman’s approach.

Another obvious corollary is that humans tend to max out their power rather than simply wealth. Libertarians among us are rare. The higher the value of an object, the more humans want to control it. We can predict that prostitution and drugs will be “controlled” irrelevant of whether they are actually dangerous or consensual. They are just valuable and that’s enough to motivate voters and politicians to control or prohibit it.

We will also predict that those controlled are those most valued rather than those actually dangerous. Last time I check paracetamol is not a schedule 1 drug despite many death due to overdoses. It’s also not illegal for kids to earn money by rope walking across tall building. No body cry it’s dangerous for minor.

Another deviation from homo economicus is that we are not selfish. Our genes are. That one is biological fact. All those genes can reproduce mainly if we reproduce. However, our genes can also reproduce well if those similar to us or our family successfully reproduce.

So huge part of our utility function is in committing altruism in favor of our family and those similar to us. Again, we can be like Friedman, redefining selfish interests to include such factors. Another way is to simply see that we’re not selfish.

If we take into account this, then suicide bombing is not very strange.

I really think the real important true alternative to homo economicus is evolutionary psychology. The shift from selfishness from individuals to genes or even memes, are significant difference that do more correctly predict humans behavior. After all, the memes and genes have simpler utility function, namely reproduce, and hence much more easily analyzed. Humans, are simply mind controlled by those genes or memes.

Again, we can still shoehorn all those aspects into homo economicus. We can say, mother loves her children because her children are her tools to produce grandchildren. That sounds funny but it’s an accurate points of view nevertheless. However, we need to redefine selfish like Friedman, namely those incorporating the outcome and reproductive success of our genes, our memes as well as others.

Incoming search terms:

  • not ugly girls

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why rich people make fewer kids?

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/06/10/the-rich-vs-poor-debate-are-kids-normal-or-inferior-goods/

 

It says that kids are inferior goods because richer parents buy less kids.

However, definition of inferior goods are goods you buy less as you get richer. Does it presume that the price is constant?

If the price is constant irrelevant of the wealth of the parent, and richer parents tend to have less kids, then yes, kids are inferior goods.

However, the price is not constant.

The price for raising kids are way higher for the poor than for the rich. Rich people simply spend more money for their kids.

Why?

Well, governments’ market distortion. Raising kids usually require marriage or at least some committed relationship. Alimony and child support, for example, are more expensive for the rich and the poor. Governments make reproduction expensive for the rich.

What happen when the cost is constant? Well before 1850, the rich are more fertile than the poor.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Can you have both good career and good marriage?

For men, success at career lead to success at marriage. In fact, the more successful you are at your career and the more money you make, the more successful “marriages” (or mates or cohabitations) you can have and the more children you can beget. So yea, seek first wealth and all ways to multiply it and all will be added to you.

For women, yea you can only have one. So look at your self in the mirror. If you’re pretty, go marry (or cohabit or mate with) a sugar daddy. If you’re ugly, then pick a damn good career because that’s all you have.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Why we let the rich get richer?

I think you should read all the other answers first. Like Eric. This is for the cynical:

It’s the cynical answer. I know. The more ethical answer is because it’s “fair”. However, for how “fairness” somehow becomes reality requires a little “process”. Fairness, is not just moral. It’s practical, and profitable. It took times for us to realize it, but we finally did.

The basic idea of is that under capitalism, people get rich through productivity. So it doesn’t matter how they get rich, they are benefiting everyone else.

The problem with that idea is, while seems fair and noble, is not actually how things work.

In ancient time, emperors are rich and unproductive and the people “let them” even more than people let the rich get rich now.

Why?

Emperors are strong. Some people know enough politics and enough business skills to lead. If some peasants would protest, emperors would kill them along with their families.

People are selfish. They do not max out their profit based on their income like in sunday school economy class. People maximize their profit based on their power.

Here is an easy way to see this. Deep inside, all species, including humans, just want to pass on their genes to the next. If we want to see how much power some men have, just look at the number of wives they have. Emperors have a lot. Capitalists do not. Capitalists, while rich, are not powerful, and hence don’t get “what they want” as much as emperors.

So issue is not merit. The issue is power. However, merit and power has a positive causality. To get power, you need people to agree. For people to agree you need to benefit them. That’s in a sense merit.

If we really do not like disparity of success, shouldn’t we complaint about disparity of power instead?

In fact, how power often override productively earned wealth is the very reason why people complain why the rich get richer. Complaining against the rich pays because the rich are weak and who knows we can rob them. Complaining against the powerful doesn’t.

So the question then become obvious. If the rich are weak anyway, why the mass, which are stronger, let them be rich? That seems to be the heart of the question. Forget about right and wrong. It’s not real. We’re selfish. Why do the mass let the rich be rich? Why not tax the rich to death and grab the money?

Actually they did. Ask jews, armenian, borgueis in China and tax payers in US.

But then the world stop doing that.

Let’s examine first how the world become the way it is.

300 years ago, a wise sage, Adam Smith, wrote wealth of nations. Now the best and brightest among us have choice. They can still make money productively or they can be dictators. Before the latter is the only choice. Before the only way to get truly rich is to be king. As the former start becoming lucrative, that’s what many smart people do.

Things don’t go as well as planned. Money is not equal with power. Well money is a form of power. There are far greater power than money. Namely political power.

Armenians and jews learn this the hard way. They earned money productively, cause resentment, and get killed.

However, the word seems to have a karma like behavior (though i still don’t think it’s as perfect as Buddha think it is).

Imagine the world where the productive get slaughtered. Would you bother being productive? Any society that fail to embrace free market are riddled with corruption, and political strife. Everyone is worst off.

We’re not dumb. We always come up with ways to move our self to equilibrium that’s “better”. What works in some is then tried in others. Through experience free market tend to produce good results. So the rest of the world follow and do it.

So the question of why we allow the rich to get richer is because it is toward our best interest to do so. Should we not, the best and brightest among us will become corrupt and dictators we will all pay the price.

Some may think that we shouldn’t because disparity of wealth is “bad”. Well, just look at emperors. Just look at disparity of wealth and power in socialist countries. Disparities always exist. Do we want that to happen because somebody is more productive or do we want that to happen because somebody has more gun?

Here is another way to look at it.

The smart can:
1. Be dictators
2. Be corrupt
3. Be productive

The mass can:
1. Support free market
2. Support socialism

For thousands of years we’re on 1,2 strategy. It’s natural then that we evolve into 3,2. It’s more lucrative.

Before, even though I am rich productively, I will still be affraid of being sent to some concentration camp by the powerful. Knowing that I try to be powerful, which is not very productive. It’s to the best interest of society then to guarantee my right to live and spend money as I please. As that get taken care of, I start becoming productive.

You see how the process works? You see how both businessmen and the mob benefited?

Now recently something even more interesting happen. It’s called globalization.

The best and brightest among us has the 4th option. They can live. They can move their factories to China to avoid minimum wage oppression, for example.

This put countries to be more like business. Each countries can only charge so much out of their productive members. Too much, and like customers they shop around.

Imagine the world before globalization.

I produced a light bulb. Someone else make better light bulbs. So I pay thugs to kill him. Now I sell more light bulbs. I generated more revenue and profit. If the extra money is bigger than the thugs’ cost, of course I do that.

In fact, that’s what happened in third world countries for years. Rather than spending resources productively, they spend resources bribing politicians to give them favors and quite often literally send thugs. Disparity of wealth happen anyway. Politicians get richer and richer.

It’s only natural. In a sense, it’s not too unfair. If the people are ignorance and resort to force, it’s natural that someone that’s not ignorance, namely the corrupt politicians, collect the money instead.

Political influence on biz created some form of niche that politicians simply fill, like businessmen.

Now under globalization, if I send thugs to beat up competing stores, I will still have to compete with chinese. No win solution. It doesn’t pay to pay thugs anymore.

Now those who used to be thugs and corrupt politicians obviously do not like globalization. That’s why they keep fighting for a while, become terrorists or something. But again, karma will work again. People are fed up with them. They’re getting killed. And good system, like free trades flourish again.

So the answer of why we let the rich, rich, is because they/someone else will be rich anyway even if we don’t let them. It’s just that they’ll be rich through ways not favorable to us.

Hei what about another option. I can lie. I can trick people that the government is fair and then screw the productive. Or I can trick the people that free market doesn’t work. Again, this gets difficult due to proliferation of internet. Truth prefails over falsehood thanks to abundant information.

Now, perhaps, just perhaps. The people still want to be a socialist. Well some socialism could work. Libertarian would argue it’s wrong, but I am a cynic. I care only about profits, not right and wrong.

As we see in Denmark it sort of work. However, that’s because people in Denmark is smarter. It takes skill to rob from the rich and give to ones’ self. Also it can only go so far because if they charge too much, the productive can always go somewhere else.

Most countries are not that smart. They do not know political science. Hell, they believe in religions. They do not understand that humans maximize profit. They think people are moral. They do not see that humans’ interests create morality. They think it’s God.

If I were a businessmen in that country, I would just bribe the religious leaders. Why bother being nice to the people if the people will blindly obey whatever nonsense the religious leaders spit out rather than seeing by themselves what’s good for them and whether they’re getting what they want.

This is of course what religious leaders want. That’s why, in countries like Indonesia we have pogroms against those who think differently. That’s why we have censorship that keep people in the dark. And that’s why Indonesians are not as rich as the rest of the world.

In a sense, that’s like karma too. The more ignorant the people, the poorer they will be. The more they tolerate or accept terrorism, the more terrorists will there be, raising biz costs.

After evolution and experience, the most lucrative system even for the poor is capitalism. Due to information age, everybody knows that. That’s why capitalism prefail everywhere. That’s why we let the rich getting richer. Because it’s most profitable for us, and because now we know it. Because human race has tried everything else and doesn’t perform as well as this.

Incoming search terms:

  • real harem
  • asian harem
  • pregnant harem

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What are the negative effects of increasing sexual disparity in the United States over time?

Improperly understood, sexual disparity has caused mass murder, mass killing, poverty, starvation and very inefficient social contract etc. All in the name of things that don’t make sense like religions, racism, etc.

What’s the point of being productive, if you don’t make more money? What’s the point of making more money if those with power, rather than money, decide who lives, who die, or who can reproduce. Think about it.

Isn’t it normal then that so many are still killing each other rather than productively earn wealth?

First I will answer the opposite of the question. I will show how sexual disparity can actually be very positive if left to free market, or near free market system to operate. Then I’ll answer the question of what usually goes wrong with it.

Sexual disparity has a VERY IMPORTANT POSITIVE aspect rather than negative if we properly understand it. However lack of understanding of it has caused huge amount of suffering, which is the answer to the question.

Think about it. Sexual disparity is the MOST HUMANE way to evolve!

We will evolve. There will be winners and losers in the gene pool. Somebody will successfully breed and others will go extinct. It’s been like that for trillion of years. It won’t change any time soon if ever.

In fact, that’s the true purpose of life, all life, namely to outbreed your competitors. Okay that part was arguable.

However, we are descendants of those who out breed their competitors and you can bet your ass, that’s our nature. That’s what we will do whether we want it or not. That’s what all living things will do.

You can read Richard Dawkins’ selfish gene for more. All the genes that we have are there simply because those genes help us reproduce. Think about it. Our will, our self, our nature, everything is made up by genes that only want one thing, reproduce.

We can’t defy our true nature. Richard thinks we can and should but that’s where I disagree with him.

Even if you, out of sheer will, scream, I won’t be like that, it won’t make much different. Someone else will. Whoever does that will reproduce and be majority. If there is anything that all living things don’t usually fail to do is reproduce.

We will evolve. That’s our nature.

The question is, how should we evolve?

1. Killing each other like genocide?

2. Let the poor starve?

3. Let government decide (enforce monogamy, prohibits sex outside marriage, prohibits women from working, prohibit women trafficking, justified by religion, etc.)

4. Sexual disparity?

These are the economic equivalent

1. anarchy

2. let the poor starve. Won’t work either, just look at arab revolution when people are starving. People won’t just starve to death if they think they can rob richer people out of starvation.

3. command socialist economy (monogamy is effectively sex socialism)

4. and free market.

Obviously the 4th is the way to go. Being a moderate I would put 5% on third bucket but seriously. Only free market can truly provide working solution.

The key here is properly understood. If not properly understood, if we didn’t understand what the real game is, then things can go really wrong.

The truth is we are very close to totally abundant economy.

Think about it. Sexual disparity for males correlates very highly with wealth. In short, women prefer the rich. Now, in western civilization welfare program pretty much lessen that. In Asia, wealth=sexy is pretty much the absolute norm. In Chinese dating websites, men would actually display their salary to attract women. It’s that simple.

Left to the market, Bill Gates will have tons of concubines; we will evolve into homo bill gatus. Poverty will be gone.

Is this desirable? I don’t know. Should we embrace that fully? I don’t know. I’ll let you decide that. But at least 2 of our main goals that most of us can agree with, namely elimination of poverty and maximizing prosperity is within a very easy grasp just through market mechanism.

It’s important. Humans have very few goals most of us can agree with. Terrorists want islam to be the world’ religion. Many want more religious freedom. Some wants bigger government, the rest want freedom. It’s normal. Gene pool survival, and hence the creed of our very nature, is almost a zero sum game. When some want something, you can be assured that most will wanting the opposite.

Only wealth, and prosperity it represents, is not zero sum game.

Now imagine if some people vote wisely for their country and their country through free market, mixed economy, proper alignment, or whatever, got prosper. Then men in that country will attract women from the rest of the countries. Then poverty will be gone again in all countries because

1. All males will want their country to be rich too. They would change their ideology to whatever work. Free market, or whatever.

2. Should 1 doesn’t happen, they’ll be so depopulated richer countries will buy their land. Imagine a country where all the hot women emigrate to another country. The ugly is unused-able and usually are feminists anyway. The pretty are out. You see how that will affect population growth?

See. That’s a vision I have for years. I see, as many of us want, to increase humans’ prosperity through ways that fit our nature rather than against it.

We can’t eliminate poverty out of altruism. Altruism is not our nature. It just won’t work. Too much forced altruism (=socialism) and the productive will go John Galt. Actually they have more lucrative option than going John Galt. Ayn Rand live before globalization. Now, the productive can just go country shopping, picking the country with the most meritocratic rules. They do not need to go John Galt.

Now back to the question. What’s the negative of sexual disparity?

Well things can go really wrong, and in fact have been very wrong because we do not understand it.

Hell most of us do not admit it.

We keep lying to our self that love is blind, that money doesn’t buy love. Then using that lies we justify stupid solutions, like bigger government regulating sex.

So how do we deal with this sexual disparity now? Well different culture does it differently.

In western civilization, the main way is to simply ration females in equal share for everyone. Namely monogamy. You do not have to be a libertarian to see that this is a highly inefficient solution.

Just like money socialism has caused hugged poverty in china, monogamy is the biggest market distortion and the main cause of poverty in the world. Our GDP is 300 times our ancestors’ GDP before wealth of nation is produced. The cause is simple.

The poor outbreed the rich. Before, with much less money, poverty is still in check. That’s because before the rich outbreed the poor, as expected. Now the poor outbreed the rich. Before, a mere 2% tax from the rich is enough to feed all the poor. As the poor outbreed the rich, even if the rich were to spend their whole income to feed the poor it won’t be enough.

Also it’s not going to work as well anymore anyway. Free sex is legal. Women don’t want to be rationed. Predictably as free sex becomes more and more “legal” marriage is simply in decline.

The rich are moving their money to China. Socialism is over. Period. Money socialism is dying. So is this sexual socialism.

The arabs have a more conservative solution. They prohibit sex outside marriage and allow polygamy. That means only those favored by the states, get laid.

That means the rulers in Middle East are pretty much the pimp of all women. Saying no sex outside marriage is like saying you can’t reproduce without my permission.

That means everyone will want to rule everyone else. Humans will kill each other to decide who should be leader, what religion is true, and what variants of those religions are true, etc. That’s what happen in middle east.

I am not saying the 2 solutions are totally wrong. Hei we built things based on what used to work. But c’mon. The justifications for all these sexual rules are religion. Think about it. Do we ask religion when we want to lower or raise interest rate? Do we open the bible when we decide how much money supply is?

No. Why not? Because we understand economy. We do not understand sexual disparity. We keep denying it. So we lie. So we use religion.

Properly understood, we can make better social contracts. We can, for example, tax head rather than income. That’ll eliminate poverty in like one generation. In addition, we can, for example, provide free cash to those without kids. That’ll ensure that only those who are

1. Rich enough to afford kids

2. Attractive enough to attract mates.

3. Want to make the baby enough.

This is also another solution for pro/against abortion. Imagine if all kids have rich smart biological dad, would mom want to abort?

Currently monogamy is there to ration females in equal share for everyone. As sex outside marriage is more common, I expect many males to be shag less. Solution? Prohibit sex outside marriage? Well, that won’t work again. There is a far more efficient solution. Why not import them from poorer countries?

What about porn? That’s like mass produced females right?

Obviously some will scream on how I “demean women”, even though it’s not what I am trying to do. But that’s the reality. We do not understand sexual disparity. We do not understand that ugly women are not sex objects and hence, it doesn’t really make any sense why they keep bitching about women shouldn’t be ones.

If we understand, we should see that humans are naturally bigot when it comes to intersex competition. Males like to kill males and women like to kill women. The ugly that can’t be sex objects of course insist that the rest cannot too.

But we don’t understand it. We simply believe the fairy tales of feminism because we don’t understand humans’ true nature.

There are so many things we can do to use sexual disparity positively.

Improperly understood, we will just keep lying to each other, kill each other, and try to rule each other.

This is some samples of what can and have gone wrong:

Currently, ugly but diligent males are forced to support childs of the sexy through wealth redistribution. If this happen they’ll vote for conservatives that’ll eliminate welfare. No wonder they want to prohibit porn. No wonder they opposes freedom for so many others.

Without welfare, many will starve, and they’ll rebel like in the middle east.

Another that can go really wrong is that it’ll motivate people to prohibit sex outside life long monogamous marriage, which can result in bigger government

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are there correlation between attractiveness and moral values?

Please verify my answer. I think it’s true. I haven’t actually done any statistic but I do observe some. Not exactly double blind tests. Just observing.

We all are sex objects and we all wanna be ones. Well 99% of us at least. Well me at least would do anything to have all hot women think of me as sex object. Men usually pay for it. While women usually get paid.

So things get complicated because attraction is often more than what you are but also what you offer to get sex.

We would support a value that benefit us and prevent value that benefit those who are different than us.

I predict that, in general, more attractive people are more likely to be pro market when it comes to sex. While less attractive people are more likely to be pro states.

This is quite vague because 40% of attraction for males are political power. The way politically powerful males get laid are often through force rather than attraction.

A welfare recipient, for example, can attract women by prohibiting prostitution. Even though women would prefer mating with a richer paying males, she chose to mate with a death beat poor guy instead because that death beat poor guy can vote richer males out of mating market by prohibiting prostitution and ensuring that marriage terms would bankcrupt rich males. Also, poor guys can use his voting power to enslave productive individuals to support all his kids.

In western civilization, child support is proportional to income. Hence welfare recipients can actually “afford” even more kids than a billionaire. What he lacks in money, he have that in power over the oppressed billionaire. Women instinctively want to max out the number of grand children and pick the poor.

Should we count this as attraction or force, is arguable.

In general I would see that there is a strong causal and correlation between value and attractiveness. In fact, I see that there will be strong causal and correlation between moral value and how a person become attractive.

Beautiful women are more likely to be pro porn, sexy clothes, and sexual freedom

Unattractive women are more likely to be pro emancipation. Unattractive women are more likely to be lesbians and affirmative action is more important for them than the hotties.

Studs are less likely to oppose sex outside marriage. Singles are more likely to support monogamy and prohibition of sex outside marriage. That way they can kick out all non singles out of mating market.

In democratic countries monogamy are norms way more than in monarchy. That’s because in democratic countries singles’ opinion matters more. Sultan that sleep with different girls everyday will obviously oppose democracy and prohibition of polygamy.

Rich men are more likely to support legalization of prostitution. Poor men are more likely to prohibit that. Politically powerful men are more likely to support polygamy and oppose sex outside mariage (sex without their approval).

Poor handsome males would more likely oppose marriage. They’re more likely to think that adultery should be legal and cuckold husbands should pay for the kids nevertheless. Looking at the laws in western countries nowadays, I bet white males are pretty handsome. Also poor handsome males would oppose prostitution also to kick paying males out of mating market.

Ugly women are more likely to be pro burqha and sexy “endowed” women are more likely to support top free rules.

Ugly women in rich countries are more likely to oppose legalization of consensual women trafficking. The same way poorer males in poor countries will oppose that.

Richer males will think that consensual women trafficking are just key to resolve global poverty.

This is just prediction. Can anyone please verify? Yes, I based this on causality. What we think to be moral is whatever give us edge over others :)

Please help me verify rather than just voting up or down.

Oh ya, in general men prefer the pretty and women prefer the rich and powerful. So you may want to take that into account. In western civilization looks may count more than wealth due to welfare. Welfare program are then effectively genocide against rich ugly males which are more likely to vote conservatives.

But that’s what makes our species unique. Winners are those who can knock off competitors and bullshit their way to do it, and sugar coat the shit. That’s how we became the smartest species on planet. We’re full of… you know, holy, sacred, sacrosanct, absolute truth, ideas, especially those regulating sex.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Government Regulated Marriage Consensual?

Imagine the world where all consensual sex are legal. Imagine if porn, prostitution, polygamy, polyandry are legal. Imagine if marriage is completely privatized.

How many people would choose to agree to something exactly the same as their government’s definition of marriage? How many people, if marriage is totally privatized, will draft the exact same marriage contract that their government have now?

How many people would agree to go to jail for 14 years like Beatty Chadwick if they draft their own marital contract? How many people would demand money proportional to the their mate’ wealth in exchange of sexual favor? How many people prefer high severance pay (alimony) instead of high salary when negotiating with a potential mate? How many people would prescribe that the state of their resident will decide the amount of severance pay each party will get. How many men and women truly desire exclusivity in a mate in comparison to say, getting a higher quality mate or higher monetary compensation?

If marriage is consensual, the number will be the same with the number of married people. Is the number the same? What accounts for the differences? Will the factors that contribute the differences consensual?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Marriage a Good Thing?

I am going to write a long answer for this. Let’s examine some analogy first:

Say you are farmers of mangos. Say there are those willing to pay a lot for those mangos.

You have several options
1. You can give the mangos away for free.
2. You can let your mangos rots.
3. You can sell your mangos to “small buyers” with great discount for those least able to pay for it.
4. You can max out your profit by selling it at market price?

Question: If 4 is illegal, will price for mangos go up or down? Does it make sense that some people want price to go down?

1. is free sex
2. is abstinence
3. is marriage
4. is prostitution

Obviously very few would do the first 3 if 4 is legal.

When it comes to mating, women are like mangos farmers. Their offers expire quickly.

Both men and women got things to offer to each other. Each of us want to get the best offers. Our offers’ market value drop as a function of time. Women’s offers drop very fast.

Yet, government prohibits humans to freely exchange what they have. The only alternative to government endorsed marriage is celibacy (option 2), and free sex (option 1).

Now lets’ examine another analogy.

You have a car. I decided who you can rent the car to, who can drive the car, who can sell the car, who can buy the car. It’s your car, but I decide. People would pay me for your car right? Why should they pay you? I decide. If latter you choose to take ownership of your own car, would I allow? Of course not, unless you got bigger gun than I am or offer money or something.

Let’s look at Taliban. Women “own” their body. Taliban decides who can rent it, who can use it, who can sell it, who can buy it. It’s the women’s body, but Taliban decides. What would Afgan males do? Obey the women? Of course not. What afgan males do is DIE for Taliban.

That’s how we control people. Know what they want and control it. That’s the same reason why we have laws against ecstasy, ganja, imported product, inheritance, etc.

That’s how Taliban are in power by the way. If we take away Taliban’s control of women, without bombing, without violence, all those regime would crumble by themselves.

However, western civilization is surprisingly not that different.

Western countries, just like Taliban, do not want to let women to freely choose who they want to mate with and on what terms. If women freely choose, too many will pick Bill Gates, Brad Pitt. The other male voters won’t get any or can only grab the ugly ones (unless consensual women trafficking is legal).

So just like the Taliban power decide what women should want. Usually mating against best selling men or those who can pay are heavily discouraged to ration females to more males, including poor, homosexuals and impotent ones.

So the answer is because most males can’t afford them if it were legal. It’s the same reason why polygamy is
illegal. To ration females in equal share for everyone, especially to those who can’t pay. I also mostly agree with Jason’s answer.

Women too have intensive to avoid prostitution. Ugly women, for example, would be better of if prostitution is illegal. They don’t get a high price in prostitution anyway. Prohibiting prostitution will hurt their inter sex competitors more than themselves. If something hurt others more than it hurt you, many humans will find that preferable. Just ask a suicide bomber.

Well not all married women will be out of biz, but it’ll be much tougher for alimony seeking vipers to get clients if they have to compete with cheaper hotter eastern european babes.

Read Matt Ridley’s red queen or any normal evolutionary psychology book.

It’s already science. It’s the reason why I am an agnostic.

Prostitution is effectively a privatized marriage. Prohibition of prostitution is then a price control. Plain and simple.

In prostitution women’s right of her body is respected. She decides the price, which will be very high if legal given that all the richest males would bid too. She decides who she can mate with. If she only want to sell her self to Brad Pitt or Bill Gates, rather than to someone single, it’s up to her. If she wants to give discount for richer smarter taller men, it’s up to her. If she wants high salary with no severance pay, it’s up to her. If she want her mate to only pay for his children, in exchange of getting richer mates that are willing to pay more, it’s up to her.

Everything is up to her.

In marriage, she decides little. Government, rather than consumers, or often religious leaders, decide who she can mate with and on what terms.

In Taliban women can only marry Taliban supporters or somebody the Taliban allow. See why Taliban has many loyal supporters? Legalize prostitution and porn in Afganistan and we’ll see the end of religious extremists. So the Taliban is effectively the pimp of all women for they, rather than the women, decide who and on what terms women can mate.

In US, she can only marry single men, which usually of lower quality for not being able to attract even a single mate. Or she can sell her self for free which is just below her market price. Same reasoning. Congress has effectively become the pimp against women’s wish.

Marriage means women need to charge less to poorer males. A housewife is a job with low salary and high severance pay. What kind of job have that kind of arrangement? The one whose deal made by government rather than consenting parties.

That effectively kick the rich out of mating market. As all price control, it causes market distortion and inefficient allocation of resources, which leads to poverty. Now, this market distortion is the biggest market distortion ever. It’s virtually the single cause of all poverty in the world.

The mere act of pointing this out will often meet harsh ad hominem attack by facists for no logical reason.

Why not let the women decide? You may disagree with me that prostitution is better than marriage. Fine. Why not let each girl decide? Who are we deciding what’s best for women?

NB: My maid’s sister got married and the husband just left leaving debt. It’s not even illegal. The law does nothing against that type of behavior. I saw many poor kids begging on the street. It’s NOT illegal to beget kids into poverty. Yet when some rich males consensually attract women on terms they agree, it’s a crime.

My class mate got married. She wanted a divorce but her husband does not let her. That’s what marriage really is in most countries: Legalized rape.

To persuade women to agree to get married, quite obviously those rapists need to prohibit better arrangements. In Taliban, women can’t even work to effectively force them to get married.

So no, I don’t hate women. I do not advocate rape or forcing. But that’s what forcing truly means, taking away all better alternatives under outrageous irrational, and hence naturally religious, pretexts.

Incoming search terms:

  • Is marriage a good thing?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,