Free Market Forever

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 30, 2012

Happiness

Failure is having less than 2 million dollars or less than 2 biological children.

Mediocrity is having 2 million dollars, spending most of it away to 2 biological children, and conforming to society’s norm.

Happiness is having 10 million dollars, spending most of it away to 10 biological children, and living a secluded private life away from societies’ eyes.

Extreme happiness is having 100 million dollars, spending most of it to 100 biological children, and telling everyone else to shut the fuck up and go fuck themselves.

Enlightenment is having $1 billion dollars, spending most of it away to 1000 biological children/clones/artificially inseminated offspring, and telling everyone else to do the same.

If more people reach enlightenment there will be less poverty and war in the world.

May all living things have happy parents.

*Figures should be adjusted to inflation, increasing land price, etc.

November 15, 2011

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.

July 1, 2011

Top 10 Facts Evolutionary Psychology and Game Theory Can Predict More Accurately Than Religions

10. Like parents like children.

This is not too surprising. However, this is the essence of all evolutionary psychology. What are humans’ natures? Well what are their ancestors’ natures?

What are their ancestors’ natures? Just look in the past and try to figure out what kind of people used to become ancestors? Those are the kind that reproduced well in the past. That’s our nature now.

9. Anything that makes you feel good are things that made your

ancestors feel good too.

Because you are descendants of ancestors that beget children, you share the same preference with people that beget children. Hence, we can predict that anything that makes you feel good are the kind of things that tend to make you beget children too. Sex is the obvious sample. Quality of sex partner is also another one.

Quantity of sex partner (for male) will be other less obvious ones. So is eating good food. Things that make you feel bad are things that’ll drive you extinct.

So get hit, having your family died, being poor, etc.

8. Males prefer the pretty.

Males that prefer pretty women produce prettier more attractive daughters that attract richer males that sleep with more women and produce more kids.

Beauty signals high quality genes. Also women need to stay healthy and young to beget children. Males that prefer young pretty women survive better in the gene pools. Most of us are descendants of males with that preference.

Women are getting prettier thanks to evolution and porn. Sample maidens with 1,056 LIVE TV CHANNELS on Your PC!

so you can compare what’s available with your current girl friend/spouse/mate. See if you can do better.

7. Women prefer the rich.

 


This one is not too surprising. Cars have chick magnet depending on their price. Price of liquors in night clubs are way higher on supermarket because drinking in night club signal wealth to women.

Again same pattern. Women that preferred the rich had more grandchildren and current women are descendants of such women.

This is the interesting part. If I like a woman because she is pretty, will I become prettier? No. I like pretty women because I am a descendant of males that like pretty women. Prettier women have better genes that I will inherit to my kids.

The beneficiary is actually my offspring, not me, but I feel like getting hot babes. Instinctively by following my emotion, I not only benefit my self, but my offspring too. Inheriting good genes to ones’ kid is what I call responsible parenting. Make sure your mate is hot.

If women like a tall man, will she be taller? No. She likes taller men because taller men will produce taller kids that will attract more women.

If women like richer males, will she be richer? Yes. But even if that’s not the case, she still has plenty of intensive to like richer males. Maybe richer males have more common sense. Maybe richer males are smarter. Those traits are inherited. Wealth, like height, and beauty, also signal genetic quality.

This is why super-hot stars like Salma Hayek, with no problem getting any males she wants, pick a billionaire that also sleep around with so many other women. That’s how basketball stars sleep with so many women that they do not pay.

All of us instinctively want the best for our offspring. About 50% of that comes from picking higher quality mates. We think we do it for our self, but we’re actually doing it for our offspring. Things that make us feel good are things that are indeed good, not just for us, but for our family and offspring.

Governments would often argue that marriage is what’s “best” for children. Think about it. Your government would probably one day kill your children. Ask the Jews. What do governments care or know about your children? However, through evolution, we are programmed by our genes to provide the best for our children. That means picking the highest quality mates even if that means having to share.

Help me monetize chinese babes. Marry them here. Oh okay marriage sucks. But do hang out anyway

or perhaps you prefer Russians instead?

Punish males in countries that don’t embrace free market. Woo all their hottest babes to your country instead. Spread freeedddoommmmmm, truth and justice!!!!! The market way.

6. We’re not just selfish, we’re also greedy.

If we have to choose among many women, we will choose all.

We’re not descendants’ monks and virgins. We are not descendants of those who are not greedy. The greedier a person, the more likely he’ll inherit something to the gene pool.

The same way those with few kids contribute little to our gene pool. Most of our genes are contributed by warlords that kill millions and knocked up thousands. The greedy are the one inheriting the earth. Blessed be the greedy, selfish, manipulative, and jerks because their kind is inheriting the world for like 8 k years. It’s not until Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations things change a little bit.

Just like successful sperms are not those that live the longest. Successful sperms are those who greedily grab the egg depriving all other sperms for the same chance.

The same way, successful males are not the one living the longest but those knocking up the most beautiful girls while depriving other males out of the same chance through any means.

5. Many humans are not just selfish and greedy, they’re also bigotic and humans will kill each other, especially the innocent.

Evil yes. Inhuman? What is human?

Make sure your children and loved ones live. Read Gene Pool Survival Guide

written by a Mensa member sold by 2co
Because males are greedy, every single males that got another women would mean the other don’t get any. Hence, deep inside, we sort of want others to fail, especially those far better than us.

This explains all pogroms against more successful and peaceful minorities group all over the world. From Jewish holocaust, Armenian genocide, to pogroms against bourgeois in PRC and Rusia. Being innocent won’t help. Those people die not despite their innocence. They died because they don’t fight back enough. They died because they earned money honestly and peacefully only to have all that snatched by those with something people should have aimed for more: power.

Why the bigots don’t aim for tyrants? After all tyrants are evil. Tyrants control the media. Tyrants are cruel and manipulative. Tyrants are filthy rich. Tyrants sell their country. Tyrants are not nationalists. Tyrants are jerks. Tyrants are cruel. So why not lash out at tyrants? The truth is, tyrants are tough to mess with. If you fight a tyrant, you die. So people aim for softer target. Innocent nice guys.

You don’t have to be as evil as tyrants to enjoy the benefit of being evil. In US, criminals enjoy first class health care. Good guys just die in droves and they’re just statistics. Yet many would go the extra mile to prevent one murderer and serial killers to avoid death penalty. People are afraid of and hence respect bad guys. Good guys are often not that lucky. Obviously human need to maintain the opposite reputation. But that’s often what human’s nature are.

Deep inside, those bigots knew they’re aiming at innocent. Deep inside, they also knew that it doesn’t matter anyway. What matters is that they got their veneer and can maintain image of being just. That’s it.

One of my vets told us that humans are the most evil animal. “Lions will stop killing when he’s full,” he said. I checked on lions. A male lion that already got 8 wives, will still deprive other lions from getting any. When a male killed another male lion, the victor will kill all the losing lion’s children.

Yea, lion is not greedy for money. But money simply don’t help lions reproduce. They’re greedy for everything else that matter, including lioness and territory.

No. We’re not the most evil animal. We’re just like everyone else.

4. Monogamy correlates very positively with democracy.

Basically most males are “better” of preventing an alpha male from getting too many women. Under democracy, interests of “most males” prevail.

While Christians often argue that the bible is in favor of monogamy, torah are not build by a democratic culture. Hence, we would expect polygamy to be common and tolerated during biblical time, which we did. We also predict that Greek and Romans, which are democratic, to be the original practitioners of monogamy either, which we did.

Until today, democracy, rather than any religions, predicts intolerance against polygamy far more than religions or culture.

That being said, polygamy cultures tend to be authoritarian. After all, shagless males would do anything to get laid, including committing suicide bombing to get virgins. Hence, penalty must be harsh to keep them inline.

3. Marriages in democracy tend to financially devastate rich males

Avoid marriage. Find out why at Gene Pool Survival Guide

written by a Mensa member sold by 2co
Who makes marriage terms? The marrying couple? No. Your competitors that want to bang that same girl create marriage terms. They have their own interests and that’s often the opposite of your interest or your spouse interests. One of their interests is to make sure that best selling men, don’t sell too much.

Just ask Beaty Chadwick that rot in jail for 14 years for not paying $2 million to his wife.

Think about it. Imagine if a rich male can get a lot of women without risking his whole wealth? Then rich men will just grab more and more women and the rest will have to settle for the ugly.

By marrying a beautiful girl, you have taken one women out of the mating market. The other males just want to ensure you don’t take more. Of course, you can still get more. However, there is no way you can do it openly. In arab you can do it openly, but only if you’re politically powerful and is in favor of whoever in power.

At the ends, power, not individual rights, that matter more on things that are truly important, like mating selection. Next, we would predict that people want to be in power and that they will kill each other for that, which is of course, true.

2. The more a rich smart male can effectively sleep with women without risking his whole wealth, the more politically incorrect it is.

You name it. How a rich man can use their money to persuade women to sleep without risking his whole wealth? The three main ways to do it are prostitution, contract marriage, and polygamy. All are illegal.

The politically correct ways are marriage, well that means risking his whole wealth. The next best way is free sex. That is also very politically incorrect in most countries.

Also males tend to make more money and women tend to stay at home raising children. So it’s kind of strange to expect a rich male to work hard all his life to make money and not spending it for women that choose him and his children. However, marriage terms tend to aim to destroy wealth rather than to support any women or children.

Reproduction is artificially costly in democratic countries for rich males and artificially cheap for poor males. Rich males pay child support and alimony proportional to his wealth. However, reproduction is artificially cheap for the poor due to subsidies. This explains why the poor breed more kids than the rich. It’s naturally predicted by evolution theory because humans want to get rid those richer than them out of the gene pool. Most people do not like supermen walking.

In general, the more attractive an offer someone make, the more politically incorrect it is. That’s why porn is illegal, because males prefer the pretty and pretty women showing her beauty is very attractive.

That’s why consensual women trafficking and international romance is politically incorrect. That’s because women from poorer countries give more attractive offers than women from richer countries that tend to be more expensive.

And that’s the same reason why prostitution is illegal. Because rich men that pays is way too attractive for lesser males that don’t.

1. The more consensual alternatives are available besides marriage legally, the less marriage there will be



Pro marriage religious group tend to argue that we need to protect marriage from other consensual alternatives. Finally they said something that make sense.

Marriage does need defending and government does need to define marriage for purpose of marriage to work.

What they didn’t tell you is that the purpose of marriage is not to serve your best interest but theirs. Hence, without protection against other consensual alternatives, marriage will disappear.

Their normal explanation doesn’t make sense. If marriage is the best and, we know our genes program us to want the best for our self and our offspring, why does marriage need protection from consensual alternatives? Best product do not need protection from competition.

When did American’s holy wood movies ask for protection from foreign competitors? When did Microsoft or Coca Cola asked government to be protected from competitors? Those who provide true value don’t need such protection. Their competitors can’t compete with them anyway. But marriage does, because marriage can’t compete.

Think about it, outside marriage, you, rather than your competitors, write your own deal. Of course it’s more attractive.

It’s like importing goods from china. Of course consumers pick that. Yea your local supplier won’t like that, but who care? Once they no longer have power to prevent you from picking better offers, of course, you pick better ones.

This is very surprising. Again and again religious group argue that no women would want to be prostitute unless they are forced too. Again and again politicians say that they need to protect young people from sex outside marriage.

People imply that marriage is the best for you and that’s what you want anyway while making alternatives illegal.

Of course, if alternatives are illegal, it’s hard to say which one humans truly prefer.

However evolutionary psychology predict that the very things people want to prohibit are the very things that are too attractive. That means, given choice, people would choose sex outside marriage.

And that’s what we observe.

When no fault divorce becomes easy, for example, divorce rate simply skyrocket.

The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%

The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%

The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

So all this time marriage sucks. However, they stay together because they

can’t get out of it.

Now 46% of babies are born outside marriage in US.

0. Women that opposes consensual exploitation of women as sex objects are usually relatively uglier

This one is pretty obvious. People opposes consensual acts mainly to get rid superior competition. Beautiful girls displaying her superior desirability set a new industry standard the rest must follow. In totally victimless ways, pretty girls drive the rest extinct. It’s very understandable then that ugly women would want to drive hot babes out of mating market through any devious and vicious means.

-1. Justification of prohibition against consensual alternatives will often be “religious” in nature


Religious people often say that they forcefully enforce their value out of compassion, to set us straight from what’s harmful to us. Really?

Game theory predicts that people will be honest on cooperative games and deceptive on zero sum game. When it comes to competition, the zero sum aspects predominate and people will lie.

How do you lie? How do you convince people to believe something that’s not true?

Science? Well some science is a lie. However, those lies are scrutinized day and night. Scientific opinions are not usually protected from freedom of speech. People do not get their head chopped off for stop believing in evolution theory.

Scientific theory must produce clear unambiguous conclusions that can be disproved. It’s not easy to do so if the theory is false.

It’s hard to lie with science. It’s far easier to lie with religions.

In fact, the evolutionary costs of believing lies are often low enough it’s often advantageous to lie even to ones’ own self it it can help to convince others to believe the same lies. That’s often what people will do when the lies changes the focal Nash equlibrium to an area they people desire.

Often, truth are simply too complicated, the the only way to counter a lie effectively is by making a bigger lie. That’s how people kill each other to decide which lies are truth.

We would predict that opposition against consensual private relationship to have vague language or heavy religious backing. In fact, we would expect any politically significant aspects of life with huge zero sum aspects to have heavy vague languages and heavy religious backing. From who should rule, to who should have the land, and who are allowed to mate with who, we would expect that religions will evolve a lot on those areas.

So, far from religions predicting humans behavior, proper understanding of humans’ nature help us to see the nature of religions.

More shameless advertising. Buy: Gene Pool Survival Guide

written by a Mensa member

Or watch other boring blogs below. They’re free. Yea your time is cheap.

world map hits counter

Incoming search terms:

  • harem
  • harem of women
  • harem sLAVE
  • harem girl
  • powered by phpBB baby back
  • evolutionary psychology beauty
  • powered by phpBB chinese baby gender prediction
  • powered by phpBB comparing religion
  • powered by phpBB earn money now
  • naked women
  • harem women
  • powered by phpBB what is psychology
  • powered by phpBB beauty and the
  • powered by phpBB psychology of children
  • powered by phpBB find people for free
  • powered by phpBB where to get free money
  • powered by phpBB higher education and world culture
  • powered by phpBB benefits money careers & education
  • arab harem
  • powered by phpBB men want emotional support and don\t ask
  • powered by phpBB the people
  • hottestbabes
  • powered by phpBB best way to make money
  • powered by phpBB game
  • groups of women images
  • powered by phpBB kids game
  • powered by phpBB night club dancing
  • arabian harem girl
  • girls harem
  • babes trafficking
  • harem hot
  • harem psychology
  • Burning Man Photos Girls
  • Burning Man Photos Woman
  • Burning Man Images Of Women
  • Burning Man Images Women
  • arabian harems
  • powered by phpBB illegal ways to make money
  • hottest harem
  • powered by phpBB your way

January 7, 2011

Should We Excuse People For Traits Beyond His Control?

Though not direct, traits we think are beyond their control are actually still results of choices. If not their choices, their parent choices. Just like I wouldn’t want to work hard if I can’t inherit my wealth to my children, it make sense to reward children then out of their parent’s contribution.

Conversely, it make sense to see that some children are under privileged due to his parents’ lack of contribution. Having it any other way will reduce parent’s motivation to contribute to the economy and making wise choices.

Simple meritocratic principles rewarding people based and strictly based on merit will maximize productivity as a whole without exception.

When we excuse people for having a negative trait because we think it’s beyond their control, we start persuading people, if not compelling them to fail. The truth is it’s still in their control or in their parents’ control.

Think it this way. Welfare program for example. Most Asian girls would not have free sex without some form of financial commitment. Asian girls avoid the poor. They know that they and their children will have to fully pay for their choice of picking a poor male. Most european girls do not have that problem because their government pay up for all expense anyway.

If women are picking financially unproductive males, while financially productive males are enslaved by life time alimony, what messages that will send to all males?

Here, welfare program not only take money away from the productive, but also take women away from the productive. Combined with heavy control of marriage, government effectively do more than just increasing or persuading more poverty. Government actually forcefully create it.

As for those who complain that IQ is not a result of choice, well, let’s put it this way. Why doesn’t his/her mom pick a mensacock? Just kidding. But well, all traits are results of choices and free market will take care of them all. People do not have high IQ because their parents choose path of ignorance. They do not want to know. Not knowing means less thinking and can mean more result. And hence, higher IQ doesn’t serve them. It’s as if they choose to have lower IQ, just like I often choose to ignore many aspects of life that’s not my thing anyway.

As for those who complain that those who are born poor don’t choose to be born that way, well let’s put it this way. If women prefer the rich, how can there be any kids with poor dad. Well, another huge topic.

Again and again, deviation from normal meritocratic norm is the culprit of all traits we tolerate because we think it’s not caused by choices.

December 29, 2010

Do Some People Care They’re Getting Extinct

You don’t care.

Many do. And that’s why they prohibit so many things. That’s my answer to Mama’s question.

Many do care about their gene pool survival and instinctively opposes anything that get in the way of it. They’re hardwired to do so by their genes. Think of them like pests. Pests just have to survive by eating food. The same way religious bigots just have to prohibit free sex to persuade women into marriage. They’re like pests.

And when libertarian choose to be childless, I guess non libertarian have won then. Then you wonder why most people are not libertarian. They’re decendant of those who aren’t.

And you, I guess the faithful have won again. They made you realize that you don’t really want to survive in the gene pool anyway.

Looks like everybody win. If the poor stop making kids, ah we need more population. If the productive start making kids, ah the world is full. Shouldn’t that be the other way around?

I mean, price of cars are artificially made high by prohibition of import. The same way cost of raising children is artificially made high by alimony, child support (that often don’t go to the child), etc. That’s not market mechanism. If government want kids to be supported, government should impose a constant obligation, say $5k/year per child, irrelevant of the parents’ wealth. The purpose of higher child support cost for the rich is to punish the rich for making kids. You fearing that punishment then become childless.

As for ideas that I want to leave on, it’s simple.

1. Just like we should stop producing B&W TV when demands for it no longer exist, the same way we should stop producing people that are unemployed. Humans’ reproduction, as well as production of anything, should match market demand.
2. Like TV, the market will sort of take care of it. Just get rid welfare program, and women that pick the rich will have more grandchildren. Those who produces what the market want will be richer. They can “hire” more women to make more kids should they choose, or inherit more money to each of those kids. Or just have fun all they want. Redistribution of wealth makes welfare parasites attractive for women. How does that make you feel ha?

January 30, 2010

What’s libertarian position on child support?

My educated guess is parents need to support their child. So government can declare, for example, that each kid deserve $5k year. Anyone that don’t make $5k/year must not make kids (possibly with vasectomy penalty). If parents want to invest more, it’s up to parent. Also women should be able to negotiate child support before hand with men and that should be enforceable in court.

Think about it. With no fault marriage many complaint that couples can no longer make marriage commitment. The problem with that argument is that there are plenty of other reasonable, arguably more “fair” commitment people cannot legally make with each other outside marriage.

Why not let people make their own contract? Isn’t this the heart of libertarian feminist? Not a rhetorical question but you disagree with my explanation anyway.

Imagine a male saying to a woman, if you agree to have sex with me any time I want you got $10k/year. Also you’ll earn $5k/year for each of my biological children you give birth too. In addition the following are my reasonable exit clauses, pension plan, severance pay, etc.

In a sense, a whore is actually free while a wife is a whore that agree to let government be the pimp. Yet every time I promote legalization of various consensual sex for money arrangement people would knee jerkly say I demean women. At the end, I kind got a kick off in actually offending the feminist :)

Why not use that instead of marriage? That way no body have to bitch that marriage law is unfair right? Just make their own contract that they think is fair and let the woman decide. Is the contract more fair? Is it a good deal for woman? Why not let the woman decide? Basically illegal last time I check. Not a rhetorical question like usual Wink In fact this is what motivates me to write my e-book. I wanted to have a purpose in life. Something with meaning. I want to make thousands of kids and I am very surprised that there is simply no normal way you can do that legally no matter how rich and attractive you are.

Of course, it’s pretty useless trying to understand others’ argument that’s based on prejudice anyway. But let’s check.

One argument is that there is the “child”‘s interest. It’s kind of funny. There are plenty of child that is born into poverty and still cost huge amount of taxpayer money. Yet government simply criminalize a billionaire that pay say, 10k per year for his wife and child. Somehow government set that wife and child deserve money proportional to a man’s wealth rather than letting supply and demand relationship decide “price” like usual. It’s like price control. Yea the kids’ interest is problematic but parents’ interest typically coincide with their blood line far more than government right? Sounds a lot like price control there.

Seems to me there is no easy way an American male can mate and reproduce without significantly risk ALL his wealth isn’t it?

Here, in my country, there are plenty of kids in the street that are sodomized, forced to beg, or whatever. People don’t care. Yet if you put your kids to programming school at age 6 people will say you “abuse” your child. Also people keep saying that porn is dangerous for minor. Yet giving birth of kids into poverty is not a crime, despite obvious adverse effect to the kid. Hmmmm… What kind of utility function the law makers really have? Any guess??

But curiously. Maybe you disagree a lot with me with many area. What’s your idea of child support should be? Should parent be able to decide before hand the amount of support they want to make before conception. Of course within reasonable limit. Say, $5k/year Smiley

Incoming search terms:

  • child support libertarian

September 28, 2009

Who are the victim of victimless crime?

Easy answer is none by definition.

But let’s look at reality for a while.

When I was young I was forced to take so many classes that I do not think are useful. In one point of view, the classes are useless. Students, however, took those classes anyway because they are forced to take those classes where they memorize dates and names of irrelevant events.

That’s one point of view. Another way to easily see that is to see courses taught by private sectors in private tutoring industry. While many parents send their kids to learn more Math and English, no body send their kids to learn national ideology or history. In no private tutoring courses students have to memorize dates and names. That shows that most parents, as informed consumers, do not think those mandatory classes are useful. Case close.

Here is another point of view by the way. The classes are useful. If it weren’t useful, it wouldn’t have been taught. Think it this way. It took enough political will to force millions of people to do something. It must be useful…. To somebody… with enough political cloud to make it happen.

All classes that are taught in school, public and private, are useful for the curriculum makers.

Will those that are useful for the curriculum makers useful for students? It depends. Under free market, students’, which are consumers’, best interests are properly aligned to the interest of the producers, including the curriculum makers. When governments can “regulate” curriculum, all bets are off.

The same way, who are the victim of victimless crime?

In one point of view, none.

But wait. If there is really no victim, it wouldn’t have been a crime. Think about it. It takes enough political will and power to prohibits many from doing a certain thing. Somebody must have had their interests, not right, hurt by those criminalized acts.

Who?

Simple. Competitors.

If porn are legal, many males would rather watch porn, rather than mate with ugly women. That means extinction for ugly women. It’s no wonder that many feminists insist that all women should become soldiers, astronauts, or anything where beauty matters little. Those are ugly feminists. They complaint that women shouldn’t be a sex object. Why? Because they aren’t.

Who are the victim of women trafficking? The women being trafficked? Think again. Many of those trafficking are consensual. If you live in a country where males want to cut your clits, wouldn’t you rather be a prostitute or porn star in richer countries? Women prefer the rich. It’s natural that women from poor countries want to move to richer countries so they can mate with richer males. I am not arguing that all women prefer the rich. I am arguing that it is very reasonable that such movement CAN be VERY consensual.

But when feminists argue that women trafficking hurt women, they are correct too. Not the women being trafficked mainly, especially if the act is fully consensual. Women trafficking from poor countries to rich countries hurts two kind of people. It hurts ugly women in rich countries that do not want to compete with women from poorer countries that ask for less and are often prettier. Women trafficking also hurt the poor males in poor countries, that see now that their prettiest girls move to richer countries instead.

Hei. I am from a poor countries and I too was sad that the prettiest girls from my high school are all in US and Europe. However, it just motivates me to make more money so I can import their replacement from China. Most males would simply choose to prohibits such trafficking.

What else?

Free sex. Does it hurt somebody? Of course. Free sex, like free trade means free competition. It of course hurts those who are not competitive.

What else? Protection of minor? From porn? I remember a story about kids that are grown inside a vase so that their body ended up like the vases. It’s not good for the kids, but good for the kids’ raiser that want to sell the kids to circus. That’s what public education and anti porn regulation really is all about. They want to grow kids in their vases, till it’s too late to reverse the damage.

Years we learn biology in school, not once we are told that women prefer the rich and males prefer the pretty. Yet we have to memorize so many other facts that are irrelevant to our lives. Why? So we grow exactly the way the vase makers do.

Rather than thinking that porn is dangerous from minor, wouldn’t it make sense to think that censorship is the one that we should protect our children from? Imagine if you’re aware that somebody kidnapped your child and grow her in a vase. Wouldn’t you want to break the vase (and kill the kidnappers) rather than agreeing that your kids should be protected from non vase influences?

What’s interesting with all these criminalization is that for some reason, most of us, quite reasonably, do not believe that competition has victim. Most of us believe that it’s part of the game and that’s the way it should be. Competition is the main, if not sole, reason why humans want to do better than others for others. Hence, people that want to promote criminalization of victimless acts need to LIE.

There goes all form of nonsense arguments. Sometimes what they said is simply vague. Some feminists may argue that porn “demean” women. It’s vague accusation. What does demean mean? Which women? Is having more freedom demeaning? Is having more power to decide what to do with your life when you all consensual acts are legal demeaning? Is not having to agree with bigots and slave owners but free to choose demeaning? Arguable. Hard to say. It’s vague.

Other bigots will resort to religions based on faith. It’s hard to argue against fairy tales as we all agree.

Most people will not get married if all alternatives are legal. What kind of stores would demand that you can only buy from that store only if you agree to some form of exclusivity agreement and be loyal customer till death do you part? Some stores might do that but most simply don’t.

Perhaps promoting science and evolution theory will help shed light to what’s the real issue is. Books like “Selfish Gene” or “The Red Queen” have pretty much becoming mainstream and help cornering religious bigotry.

Only time will tell.

March 24, 2006

How Taxing Kids, Instead Of Income, Can Help The Poor

If governments’ pay dividend then citizenships will be like stocks and countries will be like businesses. Now, if you make more kids, do you get more stocks? No. To get more stocks, you either need to buy more or perform a certain service that’ll get you more stocks.

The same way, currently, most governments grant citizenship based on two principles. First is based on place of birth. The other is based on parenthood. (more…)

Powered by WordPress

Loading...