Free Market Forever

April 28, 2012

Think Unsexy Thought Think Unsexy Thought

Educational costs have drop down due to cheap and free e-books, free lectures, and free stack exchanges forum. Formal educational cost keep going up due to government interference in formal educational sector.

Doctors in some countries are forced to work in governments’ hospital with below market price salary. Should they refuse, they will lost their license to operate privately. Why is this not a slavery and exploitation of worker?

A CEO does not usually do janitorial tasks unless she is grossly incompetent, untalented, or face trade restrictions against commercialized CEOing.

We can measure freedom by how much we don’t give shit about the interest of those who are not our target market. Whether it’s actually ideal or practical is a different story.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB free military tax
  • powered by phpBB states government
  • powered by phpBB what is the average amount for child support
  • powered by phpBB discovery toys toys teach children
  • powered by phpBB completely free legal forms
  • powered by phpBB mathematics teacher

November 15, 2011

Is Christianity Avodah Zara?

I think the answer depends a lot of what you mean by christianity, what they actually believe, what trinity is, and what avodah zarah is. For the first 3 I can explain as much as I can. For the 4th I want to learn from jews.

I think christians and trinitarian beliefs come in many flavor. Some jews may consider some flavor idolatry. Some don’t. So consider this answer as a question of which one is which.

Trinity itself is hard to understand. One way to describe it is to think of your self as a programmer, a husband, and a father (and an employer, and a business partner, and a politician, and an honest truth seeking guy). So you’re a 3 (or more) distinct being but still just you. Is programmer the same with husband? No. Is father the same with programmer no. But all is you.

I still do not understand why christians pick number 3. Why not just go the way to of the jews having so many different names for the same God. But that’s one way to see it. That view is called Sabellianism. Christians officials consider that heresy. Jews are probably more comfortable with this (do you?) and christians may have claimed sabellianism as heresy to deliberately distance themselves from jews.

It’s interesting that sabellianism, as well as many non trinitarianism used to be majority among christians.

> Tertullian seems to suggest that the majority of believers at that
> time favoured the Sabellian view of the oneness of God.[15] Epiphanius
> (Haeres 62) about 375 notes that the adherents of Sabellius were still
> to be found in great numbers, both in Mesopotamia and at Rome.[16] The
> first general council at Constantinople in 381 in canon VII and the
> third general council at Constantinople in 680 in canon XCV declared
> the baptism of Sabellius to be invalid, which indicates that
> Sabellianism was still extant.[16]

Christian priests that come up with Sabellianism are amateur and hence not right enough, heretic, deserve to die, yada yada. You got the point.

Another way to think of trinity is to think that you’re samurai at day, ninja at night, and who know what else. I think christians also have a latin term for it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchianism][1] . That too is heretical because they aren’t popular enough.

I do hope that God don’t really send us to heaven and hell based on this because I am pretty sure the majority of christians (or anyone) do not understand it. In fact, I bet Jesus’ disciples (which are mostly fishermen) and even Jesus himself would be quite confused when we asked these to Him. Yet religious leaders will have strong intensive to declare that you go to heaven or hell based on whether you believe his particular niche of religious doctrine or not.

Many things that christians consider heretic are well, christians too. These are all from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

The being of Christ can be said to have dominated theological discussions and councils of the church until the 7th century, and resulted in the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds, the Ephesine Formula of 431, the Christological statement of the Epistola Dogmatica of Leo I to Flavianus, and the condemnation of Monothelism in the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681). From these councils, the following christological doctrines were condemned as heresies: Ebionism, Docetism, Basilidianism, Alogism or Artemonism, Patripassianism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism.

The origins are from christian bible that.

As opposed to the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John has been seen as aimed at emphasizing Jesus’ divinity, presenting Jesus as the Logos, pre-existent and divine, from its first words, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”[John 1:1][39] John also portrays Jesus as the creator of the universe, such that “without him was not any thing made that was made.”[John 1:3] Some render John 1:1 as “the Word was a god”, “the word was godlike”, “the word was divine”, denying that the doctrine of the Trinity is supported by the verse.

The Gospel of John ends with Thomas’ apparent confession of faith to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”[John 20:28][23] There is no significant tendency among modern scholars to deny that John 1:1 and John 20:28 identify Jesus with God.[40]

Other passages of John’s Gospel interpreted in this sense include, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”,[8:58] “I and the Father are one.”,[10:30] “….the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”,[10:38][41] and “….he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”[John 5:18] John is also seen to identify Jesus as the Lord whom Isaiah saw,[John 12:34-45][Isa 6:1-10] while other texts[Heb 1:1-12] are also understood as referring to Jesus as God.[42][43][44]

The jewish bible (tanach said:)

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the Ancient of days, and he was brought near before Him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3407.htm
The majority of christians that I know believe that Jesus is God and only those that believe that goes to heaven. The rest will be eternally tormented in some lake of fire for got that wrong.

In fact, most christians believe that as the defining line of christianity. Those christians would argue that judaizers, mormon, jehovah witness, budhists, deists, jews and arians as non christians and would all get roasted crispy in boiling high temperature God’s frying pan.

So I have to be careful here. I am a very liberal christian and half agnosis (not to mention chinese). I do not know whether Jesus is God or not. I do not know for sure whether his father is God or not. In fact, to my surprise, not even Jesus’ disciples that met him knew.

This come as a big surprise to me. Look at here for more discussion http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A335 . So even Jesus’ disciples, that learn directly from him, when asked by Jesus HIMSELF, all give different answers.

I do not exclude the possibility. I suppose, somebody who make the heaven and the earth wouldn’t have problem becoming human once in a while. It’s like a programmer making World of Warcraft and actually play the game and create an avatar for him self.

I asked in christianity forum and got tons of downvote

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4573/if-believing-that-jesus-is-god-is-that-important-why-jesus-doesnt-say-it-more

Here christians say that after Jesus is death and supposedly risen, all the disciples knew (who the player behind the toon). Well, not really

After Jesus is death and risen, the answer to Jesus’ question, “Who do you think I am?” still differs a lot among his followers.

Christianity evolve. What I mean by evolve is that christianity comes in so many different flavors and each flavors have different evolutionary and reproductive advantage. In other word, not only christianity change, christianity changes like living forms evolve.

First we need to examine typical target market of Christianity at the time.

  1. Jews. Yap. All early Jesus’ followers are jews. Perhaps there is one or 2 samaritan women. All apostles are jewish. Peter, Paul, Jacobus, are all jews.
  2. Theophobes. These are the greek that fear jewish God but do not want to convert fully to judaism. They love pork and appreciate their foreskin, to be short. Also they don’t like stoning their wife. Yada yada. You got the point.
  3. The rest… Obviously this 3rd category will outnumber the other 2 because there are simply more people in #3 than in the #1

Here are some of the branch of early christianity. The differences between them are not clear cut.

  1. Judaizer. http://www.quora.com/Was-Jesus-the-head-of-a-Jewish-sect-and-if-so-what-differentiated-his-beliefs-from-those-of-the-Jews-at-the-time This people believe that all christians should follow all jewish laws. The main difference between these people and Jews are they believe Jesus is the Mesiah. It’s like Rabbi Akiva believing that Bar Kotba is a jewish messiah. It’s like Isaiah believing that king Cyrus is a messiah. In fact, this what confuse me about how important messiah is for jews given that they seem to have plenty of claimants. Messiah means anointed. Anointed means having your head poured over by food. Looks like anyone can claim that title by melting a butter on his own head if we want to be liberal about it.
  2. Gnosis/gnostics. Most notable are Marcion. These people believe that God of old testament is evil God for commanding, well, what they perceive as evil. You know, genocide, stoning, and stuff are kind of politically incorrect for some people somehow. They also believed that material world is evil and God is guilty of creating this material world. Gnosis is nevertheless significant. Early christian canon are made by Marcion! That shapes a lot of christianity. A lot of christianity revolve around giving up what’s in this world for something in heaven. Marcion is latter declared heretic, but still his influence of christianity is big. We don’t know exactly what Gnosis believed because church actively burn their books and commit genocide against their followers. I guess we shouldn’t condemn any custom till we learn the benefit.
  3. Arian. Arians believe that Jesus is some form of super creation. Jesus is a creature created or begoted by God or something like that. Jesus is not God, according to them. Jesus is like God. It’s the difference between Homo Ousion (equal to God) or Homoi Ousion (similar to God). Jesus once claimed that he is very old that he’s been around even before Abraham. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/iam.htm . Maybe He believed in reincarnation?
  4. Astanasius. Astanasius believe in the trinity we’re all familiar with. Then catholic church pick up more and more pagan tradition into their doctrines. The gods, become saints, etc.

So what happen to those groups.

  1. Paul is a pharisee jews. In fact, there was a time when Paul got arrested by jews in the temple. Paul quickly noted that half of the Sanhedrin was saducees. Paul simply said that he got arrested because he believed in life after death and the pharisee is on his side. It’s in book of acts. Some said that Jesus himself is a pharisee in a sense that He seems to believe in life after death.
    After a while, Christianity spread and tons of theophobes (God fearers) and gentiles are converted.
  2. Judaizers demand that they too got circumcision. Christianity naturally splits here. Paul and Peter is of the opinion that requiring circumcision would hurt sales and decided against it. Okay, not their exact word. Just go here for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem
  3. The judaizers have their own scriptures, written in hebrew and presumably earlier than the greek gospels that become christians’ scriptures. Some said that the gospel of Matthew is written in hebrew and latter translated to greek. That explains why gospel of Matthew often talked about kingdom of heaven while other gospels talk about kingdom of God. Jews have a tradition of avoiding saying God. I asked this in quora.com. http://www.quora.com/Why-did-Matthew-write-kingdom-of-heaven-while-other-gospels-wrote-kingdom-of-God. You can read more about jewish gospels there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews. Jewish gospels are not popular. Not only jews are few, they tend to get killed a lot. Also some christians church may have actively burn those alternative gospels like Umar burning most different copies of Quran.
  4. In the beginning, christianity is prosecuted. Calling a jewish rabbi “Son of God” is an affront to the other claimant of that title, namely the emperor of rome. Jews and christians were not enemies at that time. Not exactly on the same team either. Jews are in trouble with roman authority even more and christians want to distance themselves from the jews. It’s more like those supporting same sex marriage want to alienate themselves from those supporting pedophilia or plural marriage I guess.
  5. Now here is the most important catch. Arian vs Astanasius. Christianity is popular among the poor. Because most humans are poor, christianity is very popular. Soon there were enough christians to topple the empire. It did happen. During the next emperor selection, an emperor wannabe, Constantine, don christian symbols and won. Constantine is friendly toward christians.
    Constantine want to unite the empire with a single doctrine. He is a secular ruler. He doesn’t know what christianity is. So he called the most prominent “christian” bishops to discuss the issue in Nicea. In Nicea, christian bishops vote 300something against 2 that Jesus is God.
  6. This obviously lead to another important question. How in the earth the Arians are so grossly under represented. They aren’t few. Constantine himself is baptized by an Arian. His son is an Arian. There were enough Arians to defeat and conquer rome latter. So I asked this question on quora.com. Well, check this out http://www.quora.com/Why-were-Arians-underrepresented-at-the-First-Council-of-Nicaea Basically, most “christians” do not even think the issue was important. Most Arians live in the western part of roman empire. So they don’t bother coming to Nicea. Also most of them think that difference between homo ousion and homoi ousion is a greek thing. It’s philosophical issue rather than a practical issue. They do not think it’s important. Also see http://www.quora.com/How-was-the-representation-of-bishops-at-the-Council-of-Nicea-determined
  7. Arian doctrines don’t die at Nicea. After all, there are plenty of arians. After more power struggle that involve killing, exiling, murder, voting and who knows what, trinitarians win. Christians presume that God must have properly guide the killing, exiling, murder, voting and whatever that somehow the right doctrines pop out. It’s another important doctrine in christianity called inerrancy. Not only the scripture is perfect, without a single spelling/grammar error, that somehow all the differing doctrines are transmitted perfectly or something like that.

So christianity today is effectively a very helenized version of judaism that can trace most of it’s doctrine to whatever political stance used to prevail in democratic countries.

I think to be fair to christians, I should also point out that modern judaism is also a very helenized version of ancient judaism. Today, jews practice democracy and monogamy. Ancient jews practice monarchy, polygamy, and stoning. Ancient jews are more like islam I guess.

Also God or not, Jesus is at least a very influential rabbi, far far more influential than Rabam or Rashii, with only 3 years of practice. We got to credit him for that. Christianity is a branch of judaism as much as atheism, agnostic, and even islam, is a branch of christianity.

It makes me wonder that if somehow christianity is succesful in china, will all 1.2 billions of chinese have a right of return to Israel? Well, obviously not. However, that seems to explain the division between one religion to another. Political interests, which is often very understandable, rather than actual differences. Most chinese would think that all of you are the same. Even when catholics and protestants and jews and muslims are killing each other over their differences, I tend to see it as similarity rather than differences.

So again, the answer depends a lot on what you count as “christians.” My answer is more on history of what christians actually believe and secular atheistic explanation of why.

Another interesting aspect is claims by Gnostics that Jesus himself is spirit. That his disciples see footsteps without body, etc. That sometimes they can touch him and sometimes not. All right, that would looks like God to me, if it were true.

Curiously, while there are plenty of historical evidence for Jesus’ followers, there are few for Jesus himself. Peter is till on good terms with jews. James the just is killed by Sanhedrin but the leader of the Sanhedrin is fired because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just/

Also it also depends on how Avodah Zarah (idolatry) is interpreted. If we see it as Christians worshiping a man as God, then it looks like it’s idolatry. To see it as God could not possibly take a human form seems like an entirely different game. What about if Jesus is really God or one of his say avatars/toons? Perhaps Jesus is like a puppet. God want to interact with us, and mind control some material being like flood, hurricane, or man.

The idea that God is immaterial that christians believe and jews believe even more strongly seems to come from, surprise:

Socrates and Plato held that (God is) the One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real Being, the good: and all this variety of names points immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a separate species, that is to say what is purely immaterial and unconnected with anything passible.
(Plutarch, quoted in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 14:16, translated by E.H. Gifford (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1903), 812.)

http://www.mormonvoice.com/index.php/nature-of-god/

I wonder if there is any jewish commentary that claim that God has no body before Plato? That would be a way to see where the idea of bodiless God truly originated.

I guess that would explain why gnostics, a branch of greek and judaism mixed up how material world is evil, etc. Perhaps even monotheism itself is borrowed from Persian’s Zoroaster. Who knows. I came here to figure that out.

Ancient judaism didn’t ‘t seem to have problem recognizing that God is anthropomorphic. Every single guy that claimed to have seen God claimed that God has a form from Jacob to Ezekiel. Even israelites are said to listen to God’s voice in some mountain. That means at least God has a voice. Either with boomboxes or vocal chord, He must have been able to create vibration in the air recognizable as voice and that requires some control of material world. Doesn’t seems to be that difficult for God to me. Somehow the jews seems to think it’s such a big deal.

It is possible that jews that deliberately distanced themselves from christians for various political reasons.  So things that are not necessarily unjewish, like our father in heaven prayer, becomes sin because the christians are doing it. while christians try to move themselves closer to jews. Hence the whole religion keep changing in some form of goose chase pattern.

Avodah zarah means idolatry. I guess it depends a lot on what christians actually believe and what counts as idolatry and whether it is possible that Jesus is indeed God/Son of God or not and in what sense. I am explaining the various beliefs of various christians because I myself is very confused about chirstianity. Perhaps after my explanation, jews can help answer the question? I think I am pretty objective and accurate in my answer. For example, are there claims among jewish commentary that God doesn’t have a body before Plato? Because that seems to be where the idea originates.

Christians’ trinity is a very complex concept that most Christians are not even aware off. Thinking that Jesus is a mere God pretending to be human (like ninja) is heresy. Trinity has a bunch of different branches each calling each other heretics. Looks like both christians and jews borrow from Plato the idea of invisible omnipotent God that we are familiar with. Are there original similar jewish idea before Plato?

Perhaps Jesus is like Sephirot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephirot Well I guess I have to ask real christians. I am an agnostic. If Jesus is like Sephirot, is that idolatry? Kaballah also said that Torah, God, and Israel is one. Perhaps it’s in that sense too. http://www.kabbalahmadeeasy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19:-israel-the-torah-and-god-are-all-one&catid=13:beginners-course&Itemid=26 is that idolatry too?

There are many branch of trinity each mean slightly differently and we’re supposed to believe the right thing or go to hell. I guess it’s perfect exam. – When a muslim ask me to explain trinity I simply explain that secularly. Different christian sects have different favorite numbers, after rumbles, the winners are the one betting on 3. That sum it all.

Incoming search terms:

  • christianity avodah zarah

August 29, 2011

March 6, 2011

Often Fraud or Force is Necessary

Say I tell Brad Pitt, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and Michael Jordan. “Don’t rape women okay?” Then I tell them further, “If women prefer some other males, it’s women’s right.” I bet Brad Pitt will say something along, “Okay. Sure. Why not.”

Now tell that to some ugly fat poor dumb guy on the street. Or better yet, what about telling that to any normal mediocre men. Let’s just face it. Most males won’t get laid easily unless they prevent women from picking other males. Even if they can, the quality of women they get will be much reduced.

Let’s face it. Many males won’t get laid if prostitution is legal. Many males won’t get laid if sex outside marriage is legal. And if those males are truly fucked up like the Taliban, they won’t get laid if women can work because they are so messed up women would rather work and be single rather than picking them.

Well that’s their problem, say most libertarians. I agree. It should be their problem and we shouldn’t even think about it. It’s not how real life work. Interests of those who are not our target market influence us non consensually. It’s just a fact of life.

In politic, everyone is, in a sense our target market, depending on the size of gun they point on our head. We still need to persuade them not to pull the trigger. To persuade people to do something that’s not their best interest, either force, fraud, or appeasement is necessary.

Hence, persuading Afgan males to respect women’s individuals’ right is just not going to work without fraud or force. Libertarianism simply don’t serve the best interest of those with little or nothing to offer.

Those with something attractive to offer do not need to resort to force to get customers. It’s not to the best interest of the rest, quite often, to get along and embrace freedom.

“You can’t eat freedom,” says a pro socialist guy when I asked “What can we achieve outside of free market that we can’t achieve inside?” Of course I would argue why the hell that kind of people survive in the gene pool in the first place, but that’s another issue. My idea on that is something most libertarians don’t agree anyway.

I must admit he’s correct. Freedom works for those with lots of positive things to offer for others. It’s simply not to the best interest of many voters to simply pick freedom. To counter dictatorship of the democracy, we would need either a tyrant (force), a religion (fraud), or a little socialism (appeasement). Only religious countries can maintain high gini index.

Libertarian insist on not becoming politically powerful. So force is out. Also they do not like forcing religions. So fraud is out. Then they don’t want to appease the poor. Then they insist that the power that be shouldn’t tax or harm them. That’s what you wish. You and what army?

Try telling free market proponents that they shouldn’t use terror and Milton Friedman will say something along, “We never bother to did we?”

Now, try telling terrorists that they shouldn’t use terror. It wouldn’t work. Free market proponents do not need to use terrors. Free market is sexy. It brings wealth to countries embracing it. People want free market. Most Hong Kong people at least.

Now imagine if you want to turn a society into something more like the Taliban. Not even democracy is stupid enough to go there. Certain things won’t work without terror.

To make people do something that’s not their best interest, either appeasement, force, or fraud is necessary.

It’s not to the best interest of typical terrorists to avoid terror.

The same goes for hungry welfare recipients, and most shagless males. Either appeasement, force, or fraud is necessary. Appeasing everyone is expensive. Forcing everyone require mights, which means numbers. Fraud is trickier in our informational age.

At the end, it’s easiest to simply appease those cheapest to appease if we want to maximize libertarianism in any country. By appeasing those who are cheap to appease, we can avoid having to appease those who can’t be appeased.

Typical solution in western society is to appease the poor with socialism, trick the shag-less males with romance bullshit, and fight the terrorists. I think they’re on the right course. What else should they have done?

Now, western society, like any society, overspend money on socialism. That’s because most of those appeasement inefficiently go to hard liners that is expensive, or impossible to appease. Also the money go through politicians first that have intensive to make the problem bigger than smaller. That’s why people like Milton Friedman argues in favor of straight forward negative income tax.

Milton however, doesn’t address the most fundamental problem in democracy. It’s simply too profitable to breed in democratic countries because everyone else pays the bill. Straight forward negative income tax will encourage the least productive members of the society to breed like rabbit. Perhaps, combined with kids’ tax, like in China, things will work out.

January 3, 2011

Forsake All Others

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

Obviously they do not want you to be best seller.

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

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

Forsake all those who are not your target market.

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

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

You can’t please everyone. Face it.

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

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

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

December 10, 2010

Why Men Should Think of Women as Sex Objects

I guess Mama corrected me on a fine point.

Actually I should have made this point clearer.

You see, a meat butcher does not need to know what spices vegetarian likes. The same way, a normal heterosexual men does not need to know what non sex object women want. At least on a libertarian regime. That’s what I mean.

Say only 5% of women are sex objects and like it.

Well, those 5% are your target market.

The other 95% is totally irrelevant. Even if you were wrong. Say they did not like to be sex objects. So what? They’re not your target market. You’re not going to deal with them anyway. 95% is a type of error that doesn’t matter (I forget type 1 or type 2).

For that reason, men tend to think that women are sex object. We pay nothing for being wrong.

I see western civilization is becoming more like Spartan where the only one that breed is the one that break the rules by going out of barracks. Spartans were very proud of their tradition. Their birth rate also plummeted because of that and so was their hegemony.

Obviously women need to be a sex object in order to reproduce. Women are descendants of women that become sex objects.

So, that number is not 5%. That number is more like 80%-95% in my opinion.

Another reason why I advocated that we all think that women as sex object is because when we don’t, again and again, I see that she ended up being sex objects anyway, on the hand of some lesser males that value her freedom far less than us.

For example, say American males do not import third world women into becoming sex workers in US. Then those women will ended up staying in a poor country with her clits cut and forced to wear burqha and stuff. However, if American males simply allow those women to be a stripper, for example, then all beautiful girls all over the world will be free from oppression. Any countries that insist on oppressing them will see their prettiest girls go to US. Of course, american females won’t allow it because they too hate competition.

By the way, did you read the articles I mentioned?

He said about every time a guy commit polygamy with 3 women he deprived 2 men out of women. Actually he’s wrong. The main reason why a reasonably rich male in rich countries cannot get laid is not because of polygamists. The main reason is that feminazis prohibit importing those women to rich countries. That’s the real reason behind laws against women trafficking. After all, if force or fraud is involved in women trafficking, we already have laws against force, fraud, or rape right?

However I showed you the article so that you know what the real problem is. I know libertarianism do not like to generalize people. Libertarian expect to treat everyone equally. However, it’s still important, I think, to know what humans typically behave. Now that’s what evolutionary psychology is all about. Knowing that will help us understand what’s really behind religious bigotry, feminazis, etc. It’s not what they always says. It’s actually very far fetches.

And yea prohibited activity are not prohibited because no body could possibly want it. Most of the time, it’s prohibited because TOO MANY want it.

Now I need a female opinion on this because all the other males here don’t seem to agree with me.

Mama, you’re new here. What do you think? Now not only you’re more than sex object, you could be the only actual libertarian female expert on what females want here.

December 5, 2010

Do Women Care if We Love Her and Respect Her?

When they choose who they want to mate with?

Despite what everyone else said about what women want, I have never met yet one beautiful girl that seems to care whether I love her or not. They choose me anyway even though I repeatedly say I don’t love her, I do not want to get married, I hate marriage, etc. That despite they have other males stalking her professing love, etc.

Why offer what target market do not want?

I may be wrong. If they really care, then I would introduce them to those that provide those kind of love. It’s just that no body seems to care.

Not that I want women that do not want me anyway. In fact, I often introduce women to other rich, handsome, tall, and smart guys. It’s a good way to maintain good relationship. Can’t catch them all anyway.

Exactly like what evolution theory predicts.

October 6, 2010

Should We Pick Women that Want Us for Our Money

I often want to meet many women. Often I am warned by friends that I should be careful with women that wants me BECAUSE of my money.

Are those women really that bad?

By the way, what’s really at stake here.

Imagine if you’re a peacock with long elaborate tail. Should you pick a peahens that like peacock with long elaborate tail?

If you don’t, things will be kind of tough. The thing is, most peahens are genetically hard wired to pick peacocks with long elaborate tail. So if you don’t pick peahens with that characteristic, you pretty much lost all your potential target market.

Not to mention, what’s the point of having long elaborate tail if not to attract peahens? The tails are actually pretty useless for any thing else.

What about human females? What are they hardwired to pick? Well it’s more complex I suppose.

Most females of any species are hard wired to pick males with certain characteristic. For peahens, the trait is mainly the tail.

For human females, the traits are wealth, power, height, intelligence, looks, and so many other things. Unless you’re a complete dork that never hang out with anyone, you should know that wealth matters a lot in women’s grading chart.

Like peacock tails, your wealth beyond the first $1 million dollar do not buy you much more. The best of the best video games cost only $40 the last time I check.

So not picking females that want you because of for your money means you could lose 10-100% of your target market.

Let’s analyze this further

Say you have 5 choices of women. They’re all equally pretty and smart. Say they are all a quintlet twins for simplity sake.

Ann wants you BECAUSE you have a lot of money and income (the one everyone speaks against)
Beth wants you FOR your money
Cindy wants you so she can marry you and latter bitch to the judge of how evil you are so she can earn her self a lot of your alimony money while she screw someone else. That’s what typical marriage can end up. That’s what typical women are brainwashed into.
Daphne do not wants you because of your money. She wants you because you you are smart, tall, have big cocks, or other perceived superiority
Evelyn do not wants you because of your money or anything else. She just pick mates randomly and you happen to be the one. Another way to say that she’s in love and love is blind if there is such thing as that phenomena.

Which one should you choose?

Notice Beth is different than Ann. Ann pick rich smart males. She herself maybe rich too and don’t need money. However, she pick the rich. Beth is a more normal girls that wants your money to support her and your babies.

If you negotiate with her right, she may not become a Cindy.

Well, Daphne is obviously the best choice. Then Ann. That being said, Beth is fine too. I mean if you’re Tiger Wood, do you care paying a woman $1 million dollar? Sure beats paying EX wife $300 millions dollar. No rich smart males fear paying women. Rich smart males fear marriage because marriage laws are designed to screw rich smart males.

Evelyn will be tricky. I think she’s just a freak or have something trully negative that she hides. Things just don’t get too good to be true due to adverse selection effect. You can see more of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection

Be careful though. Evelyn could be just like Daphne, and you may misidentify it if you do not understand what typical women want. Who knows, you actually have a trait that women like that you’re not aware off? Failing to understand that can make you miss the greatest good deal of your life.

A good way to differentiate between Evelyn and Daphne (remember they’re all twins here) is to see whether you are approached by other girls too and check your typical convertion rate.

But that’s the art of decission making is. If you’re haunted by many hot girls then you’ll be happy no matter what you choose. Try to catch them all like pokemon then.

If you can pick one, obviously you pick Daphne or Ann.

If you can pick several then obviously you pick all except Cindy. Cindy is the least you want. However, that’s the kind of monster you’ll ended up with if you avoid all women that want you for your money.

Hence, The short answer is YES

When women want you because of your money, they do not necessarily want your money. They partly wants you for your good genes because only those healthy, rational, and smart enough can make huge amount of money. So not too bad right?

Rich smart pretty women want males that are richer and smarter than them. Why should they peak someone below them?

Do you want your daughters to pick poor dumb ugly boyfriend? If a woman do not want you because of your money, then because of what? Because you’re smart? Handsome? Okay that’ll work. But if because of nothing, then duhhh…. She’s a freak.

Not having to get pregnant, men that mated with many women produce more offspring. Women need only to pick one such male to produce more offspring. Whoever produce more offspring in the past inherit their preferences to those who are around now. So all males want as many hot women as possible. Obviously competition is more fierce among men. So it’s normal that males pay.

If you can get freebies then obviously it’s better. However if you want to make babies rather than just have sex, paying is reasonably fair. Think about it, she got knocked up for 9 months to make babies. Of course she needs your money. Also males are typically richer mainly because we don’t get knock out. There are plenty of males willing to pay. Why should she do it for free?

If you want freebies, I can understand. If you want romance, you’re in a great danger. Better girls that want you for your money than girls that want to separate you from it. The latter is called wife. http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2009/07/11/news/doc4a57fea1b39ed606977003.txt

Romance and marriage is societies’ scheme to ration women away from rich smart males. So societies have rules making sure that things go wrong when rich smart males get women. That’s why alimony, child support, and everything are set up on sliding scale to inflict pain on rich males.

Well that’s the whole point of making money. After buying video games and that big TV and house, why else would a man need even more money, win championships, climb mountain, or do anything, if not so women get attracted to it?

Why would you want to ride an expensive car if not because that car has a chick magnet in it? What good is it for a man if he owns the whole world but don’t get laid?

Obviously the whole world will say the opposite of what I am saying. People instinctively wants to prevent rich smart males from getting all the chicks. So they always think that such things shouldn’t happen.

Your life your choice. Use your left brain.

Now, the next question. If you’re a woman, should you pick a male that wants you as a sex object because you’re pretty?

Here is an easier but almost equivalent question. If you’re a human female, do you want a male of your own species to mate with?

January 22, 2010

3 Ways to Get Womyn

The first and most straight forward way is to rape. That is politically incorrect now.

The second way is to consensually persuade the woman to mate with you. The problem is the world are filled with so many other males. Many are richer, smarter, taller, and more handsome.

Well but Tom Cruise, Bill Gates, and Kobe aim for someone higher than our typical target market. Not really. How do you know they want only one? Chinese emperor got 10k chicks and he didn’t even have flat TV and flush toilet.

The market does give more absolute wealth and prosperity to virtually everyone. If there is one thing the market don’t give to those politically powerful is relative wealth and power. The thing is, that’s what gets men laid.

Another problem is that consensually attracting women are often politically incorrect too. Most societies have so many norms prohibiting so many consensual acts for reasons that will be obvious shortly.

So consensually attracting hot babes is not the only thing most males count on.

The third way is then the most common way, namely to separate target market from competitors.

If target prefer Bob, it’s wrong because it’s not love. If target pick Hasan then it’s wrong because polygamy is bad. If target pick Liu Chan, then it’s wrong because prostitution is immoral. If target pick Mr. Tanaka then it’s wrong because hentai demean women. If target pick Jean Claude then it’s wrong because inter religious marriage is bad.

The list goes on and on. Women trafficking is illegal despite consent. No sex outside marriage. No sex for cash (but chocolate and flower is okay because it can signal wealth nevertheless in a spendthrift way). No contract marriage, no polyandry, no bullshit. If the male is honest then he’s arrogant.

Each kid need daddy to spend at least 8 hours a day and 20% of his income no matter how wealthy daddy is to ensure rich dad don’t have 1000 kids. No this. No that.

The limit is just imagination. The proof is faith. It’s useless trying to argue with bigots or working too much to comply with all the norms that any competitors would come up. It just won’t work.

Finally, unless the guys is really bad, eventually the girl picks the snobbish holier than thou assholes that want to decide morality for the rest of us . Then it’s sacred and a big OK.

October 6, 2009

Non Judgemental View on Consensual Crime

Let’s ignore morality for a while.

Imagine a world where morality is just bullshit we use to persuade others to be on our side, usually enforceable by might. A world, not much different than the real one, but lets’ presume it’s true for a while.

Because there is no morality, there is no right. There is only interests. People want to maximize their interest.

Imagine if a woman is ugly.

Everyone wants to maximize their interest, and evolution theory tell us that it means reproducing.

Now here is an ugly woman.

What is the greatest danger this woman will face in successfully reproducing? Rape? Think again…

Rape is probably not on top of the “fear list” for ugly women.

Her main concern is competition.

Now if that women can choose, which one she will want to criminalize? Will she want to criminalize rape or porn?

Think about it, superior women. Ups. I got to pick my words correctly. Prettier women. Oh no… Beauty is in the eye of beholder. More attractive women. Hmm… that’s subjective. Let’s just say better “target market magnets” display all her assets in front of everyone. What will happen? It’ll create a new “industry standard” of beauty the rest must follow. It’ll drive the ugly extinct.

Now, put your self in the shoes of the ugly women. Wouldn’t she want to prohibit that?

Porn and prostitution is probably the only 2 jobs that most women can do better than males naturally. What I mean by naturally is women actually earn more money there than males even though they are not helped by affirmative action, etc. Isn’t it strange that the jobs that women do better are the very thing often prohibited? Also women want to prohibit that. However, if we understand reality, seeing through all the confusing words and look straight at photographs of those non libertarian feminists, everything should be pretty obvious.

Powered by WordPress

Loading...