Ugly Women « Free Market Forever

April 17, 2012

Warriors Are Demeaning

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Beautiful Women, Disrespect, Equality Between Men And Women, Feminists, Gdp, Girlfriend, Good Question, Government Official, Grenade, Hutches, Men And Women, Middle Class, Misrepresentation, Narrow Sense, Nobel Laureate, Personal Lives, Photo Model, Porn Star, Pretty Women, Programmer, Prostitutes, Prostitution Laws, Rabbits, Rich Women, Sallary, Sugar Babies, Sugar Baby, Testicles, Ugly Women, Vague Law, Warriors — admin @ 12:46 am

Quote from: gdp on April 16, 2012, 08:38:08 PM

What I think, genepool, is that people should make their own arrangements in their personal lives, and that it’s not any government official’s business how people choose to arrange their personal lives.

That’s what I wish too.

Quote

I also think that your “solutions” — treat all women like prostitutes, pay them to have your babies, and raise their children in hutches like rabbits — are three of the stupidest, most asinine ideas I’ve ever heard in my life.

That’s a misrepresentation of what I said.

By the way I agree with some of what you said. Not simply because something is legal means you should do it. In particular, I do not think prostitution, in a narrow sense, is a good idea even if it’s legal. Still if women choose to do so, it’s their right. I hate anti prostitution laws mainly for 3 reasons.

1. It’s not up to government to decide what’s best.
2. It’s so comprehensive it can be used to nail virtually anything. It’s a very vague law. Define prostitution and explain to me why marriage isn’t. Compare your definition to legal definition and you see we have serious issues.
3. This is what most important. I do not believe that anti prostitution laws are there to protect women at all. I think it’s there to get rid superior competitors.

Someone ask what I would wish for my daughter. It’s a very good question. In general, it’s up to her (and may be her mom). Not me. However, I honestly think that being a sugar baby is better than being a wife. Women can get richer men and richer men can get beautiful women without pretty much mortgaging his testicles.

I would rather my daughter be a sugar baby of a rich smart handsome tall nobel laureate than a wife of a middle class. I don’t care if that nobel laureate already has 10 photo model sugar babies. I want my daughter to be able to aim for the best of the best of the best of the best.

I want my daughter to be rich too independently, say as programmer. But I don’t want her to be rich so she can afford a coach potato husband. That’s idiot. I want her to be rich so she can hang out with and aim for someone that’s even richer and yes pay her to support the kids, etc.

My wife would insist that my daughter should be in life long monogamous marriage. My wife is a christian. However, if I watch my families and all the failing marriage, I see that it’s nonsense. By aiming for exclusivity women often end up with a mediocre. Then what? Marriage doesn’t work anyway. Divorce happen, and when that happen, she’s already old. Better aim for the star instead rather than life long monogamous marriage.

I think the real reason why marriage terms are made that way is to kick the richest smartest most attractive males out of mating market. Monogamy scare off the attractive. Alimony scares of the rich. I do not think rich smart beautiful women need that kind of commitment.

If it turns out you’re correct GDP, if rich males make fewer kids because they’re happier that way, because they want to concentrate wealth, then that’s what the rich should do. Not making many kids.

The way I see it is, reproducing is simply way more expensive for the rich due to artificially inflated cost. That’s wrong. That should go. If after that the rich still make fewer or more kids, it’s up to free market.

It seems to me our differences lie on what we think is best for others and what others’ would do if people are more free. We agree that individuals, rather than community or government should decide that. However, I sort of doubt the latter too.

Another is the way our mind is hardwired. I do not see being a sex object as a demeaning job. Your mom won’t become a mom if she’s not a sex object. And yes, becoming a mom is one of the most exalted thing anyone can achieve. I see becoming grenade throwers as demeaning, dangerous, and difficult.

I see feminists do not really fight for equality between men and women. I see feminists fight for equality between ugly women and pretty women. I think the latter is superior than the former. In fact, I think pretty women are superior than men. In free market, they command higher salary.

When women become a sugar baby, I do not see this as demeaning. In fact, the women may not even need money at all. I want my daughter to be financially rich too rather than depend on a male for money. The fact is that many rich women want males that are even richer. To me men paying women is not a sign of disrespect.

It doesn’t make sense for me to think that getting paid implies forced or lack of choice. I can do SEO for free. I sure as hell prefer to get paid for it for even more money. What’s wrong with that?

Paying and financially supporting women is a sign of respect. They have to get pregnant. So it’s normal that men sweeten the deal. It shows, that the men are rich enough. It’s like you taking your girlfriend to expensive restaurants. Not that she can’t afford it. You need to show that you’re rich enough, and worthy enough for her attention.

To me, women not working as hard in science and engineering does not imply women are inferior. Women don’t do men’s job for the same reason CEO’s do not do janitors’ job. CEOs have better things to do.

I think the real reason why many opposes prostitution is not to help or protect women but to control them. They do not want women to be free to decide what they want to do with their bodies. I think the real reason why many opposes women trafficking is not to help the trafficked women. I think ugly women in rich countries simply want to get rid prettier competitors from poorer countries and that’s it.

I think the most politically incorrect thing most people cannot accept is that as sex object, we are not equal. There are beautiful women and there are ugly ones. There are richer males and there are poorer ones. You, and most whites, cannot see, that under free market, the one more attractive will simply be more successful in the gene pool.

Incoming search terms:

powered by phpBB games pictures video
powered by phpBB the hottest body on the net
powered by phpBB hottest girls on the net
powered by phpBB ups jobs
powered by phpBB free background check in canada
powered by phpBB play scary games
powered by phpBB history of canadian politics
powered by phpBB money net
powered by phpBB show pics
powered by phpBB ohio criminal background check
powered by phpBB of money fast
can a sugar baby be ugly
powered by phpBB free movie
powered by phpBB activity ideas
is being a sugar baby hard?
youtubefackinggirls

Comments (0)

April 4, 2012

Irrelevant Words and Illusions

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: American Standard, Angles, Autistic Person, Beauty Factory, Bullshit, Business Deal, Chocolate Producers, Cold Hard Cash, Different Things, Factories, Heretic, Illusions, Millionaire, Point Of View, Political Structure, Power Structure, Rich Men, Screens, Texts, Ugly Women — admin @ 8:38 pm

No I am trying to tell you how I see the world. I think I am seeing it from a point of view that ignore irrelevant illusions and words. Others, on the other hand pay too much attention to smoke screens.

That’s what I am trying to say. By the way, I am not an autistic person. After all, I successfully manage a few employees. I am just seeing certain angles more clearly. Not big enough by american standard but good enough that I am sure I will be a millionaire in 2 years.

When I make a business deal, what I observe is not what it says. It’s very easy to make excuses to renege or whatever. When I make business deal, what I observe is the power structure and interests. I saw the same thing in politic.

A lot of political structure in the world is like you trying to convince shit factory that chocolate is good for you, because you prefer chocolate.

The argument can be anything. Shit factory can claim that God wants you to eat shit, and you can counter that with saying that God either doesn’t exist, or actually like chocolate too. Shit factory would counter by saying you’re heretic.

Shit factory can argue that if you eat chocolate you exploit chocolate producers, and you will argue that it’s not exploitation because the chocolate sellers agree. Shit factory will then counter that by saying that exploitation is defined when the seller are selling chocolate, instead of shit. And on and on and on….

All those worlds just look like garbled texts to me. I can try to understand it, but there is an easy way to see what’s going on. Shit factories, produce shit. Of course they want you to pick shit. You, on the other hand, want to be free to pick what you want, not what others think you should want.

We can think of poor males as “love factory” or “bullshit” factory while rich men as “cold hard cash factory”. They both can more naturally offer different things to women. The same way we can think of porn star as “hot beauty factory” while ugly women are, “less beauty factory.”

It’s natural that people would want to prevent people from providing something that they cannot offer. In fact, the more attractive the other offers are, the more incentive those who cannot offer it want to prohibit it. The more delicious chocolates are, the more incentive shit factories would want to ban chocolate.

Quite often, a common argument is that the far more attractive offers are so bad it can’t be consensual. Shit factories, for example, wouldn’t bother banning piss, or puke. It’s chocolate, cheese, steak, and the good stuff that they want to ban.

To me, the real cause of anti semitism is obvious. I would say that in many reasonable ways, jews are superior. Just look at their strings of nobels. Yes, owning banks and capitalistically controlling the media is also a superior trait. And that’s the only way anti semitism make sense. The more “superior” some people is, the more incentive lesser beings would argue that the superior people is actually inferior.

The same way, sugar babies relationship is superior to government infested marriage. Women can get richer sugar dadies than husbands and males can get women that don’t cause him an arm, a leg, and a life time alimony. In fact, many women do prefer to be sugar babies.

Porn stars are superior than most women, namely that they are prettier and more generous. Johns are often richer and superior than husbands because they bid higher and women often do prefer to pick richer johns than marrying a poorer husbands.

And yes, quite obviously many women in poor countries prefer men in richer countries. The status of those women, wives, concubines, sex workers, are not actually important. If bang a beautiful girls, do I care if she’s on top or whether I am on top? I care that she’s pretty and smart and got good genes, and that’s that. Statuses are mainly just secondary issue.

Moving from poor countries to find a rich mate in richer country is an obvious choice. And obviously males in richer countries would prefer cheaper women that’s not hell bent on making him pay a life time alimony than stuck up bitch used to oppress men. So what does those stuck up bitches do? Prohibit foreign sex workers from coming.

To me, that’s the power structure. Everything else is just smoke screen.

Incoming search terms:

powered by phpBB cool illusions
powered by phpBB eye illusions
Are pretty women crime victims more often than ugly women?
free ugly babes

Comments (0)

Analogy Games

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Advertising Costs, Agonizing Death, Analogy, Buyers And Sellers, Capitalists, Coercive Power, Concentration Camp, Disparity, Government Note, Import Tariff, Inferior Products, Libertarians, Life Expectancy, Mail Order, Pimp, Reproductive Success, Rich Countries, Sex Worker, Sexual Selection, Slave Labor, Socialists, Sugar Babies, Superior Products, Ugly Women, Women Engineering, Women Trafficking — admin @ 5:07 am

Prostitution : Pimp

Marriage : Government

Note: Government is the pimp of all marriage. Marriage is a prostitution where government is the pimp.

Marriage : Centralized Planning

Prostitution: Free Market

Note: Marriage is prostitution governed by the states

Socialists : Capitalists

Libertarian : Politicians

Note: Socialists believe that disparity of wealth shouldn’t exist and even if it does, it shouldn’t matter in deciding happiness, sexual selection, reproductive success, or life expectancy. Libertarians believe that disparity of coercive power shouldn’t exist and even if it does, shouldn’t matter in deciding happiness, sexual selection, reproductive success, or life expectancy. Socialists think that it’s not his fault that he ended up with 5 kids and no money after picking up english as major. Libertarians think that it’s not his fault, that he’s outvoted, after he failed to make 5 kids and not desperate enough for money.

Import : Tariff

Mail order sugar babies : Anti Women Trafficking Laws

Note: The main result of anti women trafficking laws, and hence the intent, is to protect ugly women in rich countries from having to compete with cheaper competitors mass produced more cheaply abroad. Another side effect is more income for politicians.

Advertising : Hidden Terms

Porn : Burqha

Note: Superior products advertise itself. Huge amount of value difference between buyers and sellers allow bigger advertising costs. Inferior products demand prohibition of advertising.

Jews : concentration camp
Rich males : Marriage

Note: In both cases they suck your money, force you to do slave labor till you die slow agonizing death.

What’s the other one
jews : nazi
porn star : feminazis

Note: The left is genetically superior than the right. The left get screwed by the right out of envy.

Women : Engineering
CEO : Floor moping

The kind of CEO that do floor moping jobs are the incompetent ones.

Incoming search terms:

free real fucking suger fate womens of wourld
powered by phpBB free toys for kids
women trafficking
looking hot Asian Sugar Baby
powered by phpBB baby gender predictor

Comments (0)

April 2, 2012

An Article I Totally Agree With

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Cheese, Chocolate Factory, Duh, Feminists, Hot Women, Poor Men, Prostitution Sex, Secretaries, Sex Object, Sex Workers, Sugar Babies, Ugly Women — admin @ 1:29 pm

http://www.misanthropytoday.com/why-most-feminists-are-ugly/

This is like 40% of my message. Just like poor men don’t want women to pick men most capable to pay, ugly women don’t want women to be sex object.

Duh….

Am I the only one seeing the obvious? There is no exploitation, force, or anything “wrong” in prostitution, sex workers, polygamy, sugar babies, and consensual sex between bosses and secretaries. I know some would bitch about it.

It’s all effectively like you prefer cheese than chocolate and has to convince chocolate factory that cheese is better. The issue is not whether you’re right or not. You’re right. If you prefer cheese, then cheese is better. The issue is chocolate factory wouldn’t agree no matter what.

The same way there are many hot women that live happily with richer men. The issue is not that they’re not happy. The issue is ugly women and poorer males will say it’s wrong no matter what.

Comments (0)

March 24, 2012

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

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Acts, Appendix Removal, Best Interest, Cops, Crowd, Drugs Are Bad, Enemies, Fairy Tales, Fraud, God, Hell Fire, Hostility, Marriage, Monogamous Marriage, Muslim Religious Leaders, Nonsense, Politicians, Prostitutes, Psychopath, Religious Leaders, Social Liberal, Stab, Strange Beliefs, Ugly Women, Wallet — admin @ 5:22 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then again, who says we’re not psychopaths?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are 2 ways to analyze most similar situations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incoming search terms:

Comments (0)

March 8, 2012

Freedom and Compromise

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: 1a, Commercialized, Compromise, Consenting Adult, Dad, Favorable Treatment, Gene Pool, Genes, Government Interference, Government Intervention, Government Regulation, Governments, Legitimate Cause, Private Deals, Prostitution, Reproduction, Secondary Consideration, Sex Acts, Trade Restriction, Ugly Women — admin @ 3:47 am

I think you misunderstood my ideas a lot. As usual there are 2 parts. There is the ideal part and there is a damage reduction compromise. For the former I am all in. For the latter, just come up with better idea than mine then, anything that works.

I do not advocate government intervention at all in sex and reproduction. Every sex and reproductive acts between consenting adult should be legal whether it’s commercialized or not. Marriage should not get any favorable treatment compared to prostitution and it’s not up to government to decide which one is which.

That’s my main idea. That’s the only think I want to promote. What is so not libertarian about that? The rest are just explanation why most problems we have now will go away by it self if that’s implemented.

The following are just secondary consideration why I think things will work way better than what most libertarian think. I think it’s true but it’s doesn’t have to be.

I think better genes will proliferate under free market by itself if trade restriction on sex and reproduction is gone. Women prefer the rich and men prefer the pretty. Porn will reduce the number of ugly women that get laid. The pretty can get the rich. So, more kids will have rich smart dad. No need for government intervention. Let the market decide who they want to mate and breed with and under what terms.

What is so unlibertarian about it? No government. Let people make their own private deals. Let free market decide who stays in the gene pool and who doesn’t.

I do not even ask for government interference on area where governments do have legitimate cause. I think free market will take care of it better than government’ regulation

1a. Governments do have a case to prohibit breeding by those who can’t fully afford kids. However, even that is not necessary. I do not advocate even that. Women already have strong incentive to pick men that’s most able to fully afford kids even without governments’ requirement. What do you think about this?
1b. I think government has a case to say that child support should be more than a certain amount. That amount should not depend on parent’s wealth at all. Even that it’s not necessary. Women have strong incentive to pick males that can commit higher child support automatically under free market. Contemporary child support laws are just excuse to rob rich males. Fuck that.

2. We can win afganistan war with less military. Just allow hot afghanistan babe consensual chances to immigrate to richer countries and be consensual sex workers. Taliban men will go extinct by themselves. No force involved. NO VICTIM at all.

See simple ideas. Which one is against libertarianism anyway?

Now the 3rd is probably the real difference. It’s more of damage mitigation and I am not sure I am correct. It’s not my main idea.

3. I want to decouple redistribution of wealth with number of kids.
Ideally there is no redistribution of wealth. But say government give wealth to coca cola drinker. Of course it’s normal to expect that pepsi drinkers to get the same too.

Contemporary redistribution of wealth is given to those with kids. If you have kids governments pay for your kids’ education. Those who don’t have kids got nothing.

I think balancing that will reduce perverse incentive to breed. If you have kids, well governments pay for public school. It’s natural to expect that government spend the same amount of money for those with no kids, say by paying cash.

I would say government shouldn’t help the poor and the sick. Ideally there is 0 money for them. But if government pay for the poor and sick, government should also give cash to the rich and healthy. Simple right? Less incentive to be poor and sick.

It’s Milton Friedman’s idea actually.

Incoming search terms:

prince with harem

Comments (0)

November 5, 2011

Why Marriage is like Concentration Camp?

Filed under: Featured — Tags: 20th Century, Alpha Males, Beauty, Business Government, Capitalists, Child Support, Concentration Camp, Extermination, Fascists, Females, Feminazis, Government Need, Group Marriage, Guns, Hate Jews, Hated Jews, Having Sex, Inferiority, Innocent, Jews, Marriag, Marriage, Mate, Mates, Mediocre Men, Nazi, Nazis Hatred, Oppo, Paternity, Polyandry, Poor Men, Porn, Prohibition, Prostitution, Religious Bigots, Rhetorical Question, Sex Objects, Star Of David, Toast, Truth, Ugly Women, Vague Concept — admin @ 6:25 am

In mid 20th century there was these highly industrious smart, productive, funny, ancient and wise people called the jews.

They’re endangered species now. These people underestimated their government’s hatred against them.

The same way today, there are capitalists. Most of those underestimate others’ hatred over them.

The jews underestimated Nazis’ hatred toward them. They think they won’t get screwed. “We are useful to them. Why would they kill us?” They said to themselves. They failed to realize that:

1. The mediocre hate the smart. That’s why Nazis hated jews.

2. The lazy hate the diligent.

3. The unproductive hate the productive.

4. The less competitive hate those who out compete them. The less competitive always want to prevent those better than them from reaching their full potential.

The same way most people fail to realize that:

1. Mediocre men do not want women to only pick the rich. That’s why they prohibit prostitution.

2. Singles do not want people with mates to keep getting mates. That’s why they prohibit group marriage, polyandry and polygamy.

3. Ugly women do not want women to be judged by their beauty. That’s why they prohibit porn.

4. The less competitive hate those who out compete them or have potential to do so. The less competitive always want to prevent those better than them from achieving their full potential.

All these are half obvious already. Yet most people don’t know.

The fascists justified killing jews by claiming that the jews are inferior anyway. If it were true, why not just let the market decide? Not a rhetorical question. Inferiority is a very vague concept. In a very reasonable sense, the truth is actually the opposite.

The fascists also justify prohibition of prostitution by claiming that prostitution is such a bad deal no women could possibly want that anyway. If it were true, why not let the market decide? Not a rhetorical question. Bad deal is a very vague concept. In a very reasonable sense, the truth is actually the opposite.

So the Nazis pulled out a trick. “Work will set you free,” said bigots. “Just register your arms and wear star of David band for ease of identification,” said the Nazi.

All those seem pretty innocent.

Yet something was suspicious. What business government has in identifying who were jewish and who were not? They should have asked.

The same way, religious bigots and feminazis are pulling tricks. “Get married first before having sex,” said religious bigots. “Women are not sex objects and should not be judged solely by their beauty,” said ugly feminazis.

All those seem pretty innocent.

Yet something is suspicious. What business does government have in regulating marriage?

What business does ugly women have in controlling how we think? When men think of women as sex object, we usually mean the pretty right? So why the ugly care?

But many jews didn’t see that the Nazi wanted their extermination. What else could they have wanted? By registering their guns they are easy to disarm. By wearing stars they are easy to identify. And by being in concentration camp they are easy to exterminate.

The same way many of us do not see that those wanting us to get married want nothing but our extermination and suffering. What else do they want?

By getting married government has power to define what marriage mean. Government can ration mates in equal share for everyone by allowing people to only pick singles.

By getting married judges have justification to prosecute the rich with hefty alimony. The justification, as ridiculous as it sound, is that you agreed to that indirectly when you get married.

By getting married people make it easy for government to screw them.

Little did the jews know that hatred against them would matter far more in concentration camp than outside.

Outside concentration camp, hatred against jews matter much less. The jews can still fight, flee, or run.

Inside concentration camp, they’re toasted. Literally.

The same way, little people know, that hatred of those who are not competitive are far less influential outside marriage than inside marriage.

Outside marriage, you decide terms of your mating.

You can change partners, and hence providing intensive for the other side to behave fairly toward you. You can decide your own contract. You can share a more desirable partner, or be shared. It’s up to you.

Women typically can aim at far richer males outside marriage. Richer smart men can aim at more women outside marriage. It’s happening anyway thanks to higher and fairer income disparity globalization bring here.

Inside marriage, the will of all those bigots matters. A girl will have harder time aiming for the rich inside marriage. Rich males are afraid of having to pay big alimony and will not marry unless the women are smoking hot if at all. All those alimony laws are destructive only to the rich. Think about it.

Fascists ensure that rich men that still get married are pretty much screwed, hence ensuring that only the poor are available to marrying women.

Hence, the result

Read more about Beatty Chadwick here.

Check more here for more horror stories.

If you are a beautiful woman, getting laid by rich smart males willing to support you in exchange of sex or reproductive service is very easy. The richer the male, the more he wants you. Finding a male that are willing to risk going through those horrors for nothing is obviously difficult. The richer the male, the less likely he wants marriage.

Notice that genocide pictures I showed you above is quite typical. Most concentration camps’ Nazis to jews relationship does end up badly, for the jews. The experience are different. Some get burned, others get shot, another get gassed etc.

Notice that Beatty Chadwick’s case is quite typical. Most marriage does end up badly, for the productive. Experience varies. Some go to jail, others paid huge lifetime alimony, etc.

Perhaps the jews think that outside concentration camp, fascists can still kill them anyway. True.

But it’s much harder to kill them outside than inside.

As more and more are outside, fascism will starve and get weaker.

The same way many think that outside marriage, fascists can still control their life anyway. True.

Fascists can still prohibit prostitution. Fascist can still declare that cohabiting partners are married, hence effectively instituting forced marriage. Fascist can still prohibit prostitution. But fascists will have much harder time running your life outside marriage.

As more and more babies are born outside marriage, fascism will starve and get weaker.

A lot of hatred was there in the design of concentration camp. They got gas chambers, they got chains, they got guards with guns. Concentration camps were there to kill jews. Shouldn’t jews be suspicious?

The same way, a lot of hatred is there in the design of marital laws. They got life time alimony proportional to men’s income. They got judges ordering males to support kids that are not biologically his. Marriage laws are there to bankrupt rich smart males. Shouldn’t all rich males be suspicious?

Trust your government?

Remember genocide. Remember Beatty Chadwick.

Never again! we let fascists influencing who should stay in the gene pool. Yes in both cases (I am tired of writing the same thing twice), many will deny that.

Do not trust your government. The same government that claim to define what’s best for your kids are the same one that would send those same kids to ovens and roast them slowly. Just ask any holocaust survivor or Beatty Chadwick.

Never forget. Government sucks. Free market is awesome. Free market forever.

Incoming search terms:

afghan eyes
powered by phpBB beauty pics
powered by phpBB funny free
jews funny
jobs for ugly females

Comments (0)

August 29, 2011

Should men get married?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Alimony, Ask Question, Beatty Chadwick, Child Support, Competitor, Democratic Countries, Different Story, Equal Share, Females, Incorporate, Legislators, Marriage, Matt Ridley, Monogamy, Nazis, Parasites, Pretty Girl, Prostitution, Rapists, Religious Bigots, S Market, Sweet Heart, Target Market, Ugly Women, Welfare, Wiki, Wikipedia — admin @ 6:05 am

No.

At least no if what you mean by marriage is marriage as
defined by the states. It’s a different story if you draft your own
marital contract. However, drafting your own marital contract can land
you in jail due to anti prostitution and anti polygamy laws. So you
won’t call that marriage either..

Do you want to be like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick?

The last thing you want is letting government effectively deciding your
spouse. Why would you? Why is it up to government whether you’re going
to have 3 or 10 or 1? Why it’s up to government you will share half? If
she’s happy with 20% or $100k why offer her half of your income? Why not
let you and she decide? Why let government decide?

You don’t like ugly women. Why let what ugly women want matter to you at
all? They’re not your target market. What they want should absolutely mean
nothing. However, if you get married, votes from ugly women decide your
marital terms.

Marriage is regulated by the states. The states
are regulated by legislators. Legislators are regulated by voters. And
those voters are your genetic competitors who will go extinct unless you
go extinct first.

Marital terms are full with your competitor’s
interest. Marital terms in most democratic countries are there to
bankrupt rich smart males. The purpose is to kick richer males out of
mating market.

Monogamy is there to ration females in equal share for everyone. Ask Matt Ridley. Also check here http://cocksofthealphamales.com/

That’s why alimony, and child support is
proportional to a man’s wealth rather than to the women’s market value.
That’s why you can only pick singles, even though singles are single for
“a reason”.

Imagine if you prefer to share somebody more
attractive rather than be the only one for someone less attractive?
Can’t do that in marriage. If I can’t get a pretty girl, I’d rather
watch Miyabi.

That’s why they don’t just let the market decide
marital terms. Why else? They knew that no body will use the insane
terms government prescribe if marriage is privatized.

Should you get married? Well ask this question. Should you incorporate interests of nazis, ugly women, poor males, rapists, facists, religious bigots, singles, welfare parasites, and bigots into your marital contract?

Do you want to end up like Beatty Chadwick?

Now if you fully craft your own contract with the sweet heart, then it’s a
different story. However, many will not call that marriage. Many will
call that prostitution, polygamy, etc. So be careful.

Best to just keep it quite, buy here expensive lobster, sign contracts that you
will afford all her kids if and only if genetic testing show it’s yours.
Then bang her. That’s it. No need for all the other marital terms. If
you feel other terms are needed, write your own.

Till you’re rich enough to attract and knocked up many hot girls in Asian night clubs, just watch Miyabi. Help women evolve. Pick the pretty. Soon every kids
have rich smart dad. Poverty will go away. Now that’s true social
responsibility.

– Some reasons why people may still want to get married:

1.
Religion. This is the main reason. Forget it. Did God ever told you
that you should keep supporting someone else’ kids even though genetic
testings shows the kids are not yours? C’mon. Do you really think that
God want you to make that kind of deal first before you bang any girl?
Because that’s what marriage, as defined by the state, mean, namely
making that kind of deal.

When did God say she deserve half? When Nebudkanezar told Ester that she get half, she didn’t say, “Isn’t half is mine anyway?” When did God say you shouldn’t have concubines? Fine. Go through all the bible and through all marital laws and draw a line for every rule in the contemporary marital laws and the bible and see if they are isomorphic. Interpret the scripture your self. Don’t let others interpret that for you.

You may argue, oh marital terms should be changed to conform more to the bible. The problem is not the terms. The problem is WHO make the terms. Want it to be something good for YOU, then write your own. Want it to be something good for those who hate you, then take the plunge.

Obviously biblical marriage sucks too. But just in case you truly prefer that, keep in mind that marriage nowadays has nothing to do with marriage in the bible. It doesn’t have the same name, it doesn’t have the same term. It’s a different deal. It’s just completely different things.

2. Historically marriage serve 2
purposes. One is deciding fatherhood so you can inherit your wealth.
Well, use genetic testing for that.

3. Another benefit of
marriage is women knows that her child will be taken care of by daddy.
Again you can either draft your own contract or let the state force you
to pay child support without marriage for this. The difference, is that
if you marry her, you may still be liable to support her child even
though it’s not yours. In any case you support your child anyway. So why would you risk having to support the milk men’s child?

4. If you still want to
get married, I can’t stop you. But please read all marital terms first
or hell, craft your own. So many people get married not knowing what the
deal is. It’s a major contract guys. At least read this first:

http://freemarketforever.com/2011/07/01/top-10-facts-evolutionary-psychology-and-game-theory-can-predict-more-accurately-than-religion/

and

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature

Okay. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe marriage is such a good thing. Great.
Go ahead. Get married. Just write the damn contract your self. What can
you get out of government defined marriage that you cannot get out of
writing contract your self?

If the issue is not being in jail or bigger tax break, then it should raise issues on con-sensuality of marriage and for whose interests are marriage terms really made right?

5.
Forget romance. Oh hell… There is only one reason why people want you
to believe something without checking. They want to lie. Proponent of
romance are evil bigots that want you to end up like Beatty Chadwick.
That guy rot in jail for 14 years for getting married. That’s more than
murder man. That’s how pro marriage people hate males. They sent males
to jail. Getting married give them a good excuse and mean to do so. Your
mates are decided by 2 main factors. Supply demand. That’s it.
Read
http://freebeattychadwick.blogspot.com/ to see how Beatty rot in jail
for 14 years. That’s what model typical marriage is nowadays. Why people
want you to get married? So you ended up like Beatty. They’re your
competitors. They’re not happy that you got hot babes. They want you to
suffer. That’s why they want you to get married, like Beatty.
Here, read more.

http://www.google.com/search?q=beaty+chadwick&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

6. Think of whether you can get into her skirt outside marriage. If she doesn’t want it, she doesn’t love you. If she doesn’t love you and you let her power over you, look what will happen to people that make that kind of mistake.

http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/images/Armenia_slaughter.jpg

7.
If marriage is so good, why not let the market decide? If marriage is
so good, there will be fewer divorce and about the same marriage even if free sex
is legal. Well, when free sex is legal, marriage is in decline
everywhere. Customers max out their profit. There is only one reason why
more and more people choose not to get married. Marriage doesn’t live up to it’s opportunity costs. Ask any economists. This is econ 101.

In ancient time, virtually all consensual better alternatives are
effectively illegal. Some cultures, like the arabs, still have a blanket bank against all sex outside marriage. That’s the main reason why people get married. Forced. As more and more cracks are open, marriage is in decline big time. Even in Iran, a conservative country, contract marriage is more common than marriage. In US, free sex is more common.

8. Marriage give women right to cut of your penis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt After seven hours of deliberation, the jury found Lorena not guilty due to insanity causing an irresistible impulse to sexually wound her husband. As a result, she could not be held liable for her actions.

If you’re not married and she cut of your penis, will she get away with it?

9. Marriage give women right to kill you. http://articles.cnn.com/2007-08-14/us/preacher.slain_1_mary-winkler-fourth-street-church-preacher-husband?_s=PM:US

10. Some people may think that alternatives to marriage, like prostitution can cause STD. Find. Make your own arrangement that’s relatively STD free. Rather than renting her for 1 hour, rent her for 3 years. Or stuff like that. You can pull that out in Asia. Hell, women would do a lot for a green card. Seek other ways first. Knows the truth. For narrow is the path to safety and few people found it. However, wide are path to marriage hell, because people don’t think.

11. Marriage terms are so bad for males that it’s bad for women too. Women can only get dumb or poor males if she insist on getting married. Women with equal beauty, can get richer males outside marriage. Many smart pretty women prefer that and more would do that if free market decide that.

12. Marriage doesn’t buy sex. Yap. Marital rape is illegal. Not that you want to do it anyway even if it’s legal. But at least if you’re not married, you can just use your money to woo others and she will have a strong reasonable intensive to perform. Within marriage, you still pay her anyway even though she bang the milk man.

So, want bondage? Spanking? BDSM? 69? Blowjob? Swinging? Threesome? Foursome? Fingering? Tits job?

Don’t get married. She’ll just say no and it’s over. Hiks hiks hiks… Outside marriage, just find someone else that want and show her a sample of what you want

13. Oh and banging someone else wife is great. It’s perfectly legal. Also you got someone else working his ass off to support your child. If you really want to bang married women, make sure it’s not yours.

14. Women prefer married man. Okay, this is the only reason I can think of why marriage may be a good thing. If you think this is significant enough, then consider marriage. Otherwise, save the money for bigger cars with chicks magnet.

If anyone still want to get married, please comment on this answer so I can straighten your head. I want to save as many people as possible from marital hell. That’s the whole point of reaching enlightenment, so I can compassionately save people.

Incoming search terms:

beatty chadwick

Comments (0)

January 9, 2011

Supply is Not Elastic

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: 2c, Absence, Assumption, Beauties, Benefit Of Doubt, Bigots, Cement, Evidences, Evolutionary Psychology, Faith, Genes, Genetic Correlation, Globalization, Governments, High Paying Jobs, Justification, Libertarians, Market Demands, Marriage, Mate, Prostitution, Sexual Selection, Triumph, Ugly Women — admin @ 9:11 pm

I understand that many libertarians would curse me when I said about what I think women want.

They’re right. I don’t know. Not only I don’t know, statement about what women want are often used as justification of very anti libertarian agenda. So naturally libertarian hates that statement.

Government, encourage marriage and prohibits prostitution under assumption that marriage is “good” and women want life long legally binding marriage anyway. Libertarian argues that it should still be up to women.

Evolutionary psychology position is that prostitution is preferable to most women and that’s the very reason why it’s prohibited. Moreover, simply giving bigots benefit of doubt like what Libertarians do just won’t cut it.

In the absence of evidences, that’s heavily censored, in area of life politically significant, faith triumph over science. It’s just fact.

But why? Why all the effort to regulate sex?

This is probably the biggest difference between libertarian and non libertarian. Libertarians, especially entrepreneurs, match what they produce with what the market demand. So libertarians do not care what the market actually demands. All they want is honest signal of what the market wants so they can fulfill it.

Does it ever occur to us that most people cannot match what they produce with the market demands?

You have a factory of cement, for example. Then suddenly governments’ embrace globalization. That means your factory will just be junk. You can’t easily change that.

The same goes for beauties. If suddenly we realized the obvious that males want the pretty, can ugly women match the market demand and be prettier?

No. In fact, if there is any pattern in sexual selection is that anything “sexy” is most likely genetic. What we’re buying when we pick a mate are genes. Beauty is in demand precisely because women can’t earn it, at least not easily.

Having a high paying jobs will also have huge genetic correlation. High paying jobs are often high paying precisely because workers can’t easily choose to be able to do it. Otherwise I would have been a heavy weight boxing champ.

Libertarians positions are:
1. What ever 2 consenting parties agree to do, it’s no body else’ business.
2. What people typically want doesn’t matter. What matters are what each individuals want.

I like libertarianism. I must admit that those 2 positions are factually correct in most area. In some area, the 2 positions are simply false.

Areas where those 2 positions are false are area where supply is not very elastic. Those are precisely the area where governments often interfere, though arguably shouldn’t.

In fact, inelasticity of supply is the very justification of most unmeritocratic rules agreed even by some of the most hard core libertarians called objectivist.

“Forced altruism may be justifiable for things beyond their control,” I’ve heard an objectivist say.

“It’s not fair to hold people accountable for things beyond their control,” says others in justifying that a defendant is innocent on ground of insanity.

“People can’t be programmer anyway no matter how high programmer’s salary is,” says my socialist friend.

To which those with the least to offer simply say that things are not within their control. “Every body wants to be rich but well, I am poor here against my will,” says a cradle to grave welfare recipients.

What I mean by not very elastic doesn’t mean it’s totally inelastic. In fact, I am of the opinion that many things we think is inelastic is actually very elastic in a quite unintuitive ways and those unmeritocratic norms will produce whatever typically unmeritocratic norms will do, namely unproductivity.

Those are elastic in politically incorrect way. The way the supply is elastic is outside our box and hence looks inelastic. Heavy anti market regulations, for example, will create demand for corrupt officials. Well, we don’t teach that in school or public success coaching do we?

Imagine what happen in most normal goods. Say demand for fish drops. Then price of fish will drop too. The drop of the price of fish will also drop supply of fish. At the end the price of fish won’t drop that much. In the short time, price will drop. That’s because of the huge sunk cost fish industry has put. At the end it won’t matter match. Price drops but not a lot in the long run.

The same for steel or car factory. Say demand for car suddenly drop due to competition in china. It’ll be just like fish. Except that now the sunk cost is bigger. The number of jobs lost is bigger. The political pressure, something libertarians never take into account, to prohibit car imports will be bigger. That explains why for so many years we do not have globalization.

Most libertarians will simply tell those car industry workers, “Tough.” Yea they can’t change job. It’s easier for them to pressure government to prohibit import then to change them self. Let’s just face it. That’s what they do.

Now what about sexual demand?

Say men prefer the pretty (they do, we do, I know). Say men only pick the pretty. Now, does that affect the ugly?

Libertarian position is:
1. What ever 2 consenting parties agree to do, it’s no body else’ business.

In most products and service it doesn’t. However supply is NOT elastic. Ugly women can’t just be pretty. Men picking the pretty will drop the value of ugly women.

Libertarian position is:
2. What people typically want doesn’t matter. What matters are what each individuals want.

Again, what people typically want matters a lot on supply inelastic goods. That’s because what people typically want decides the market price.

If porn is legal, ugly women will go extinct. I must admit American girls are typically prettier than Indonesian thanks to porn.

Now what about supply inelasticity itself. Didn’t I say that that those are actually elastic?

Take a look at car factories, for example. In short terms, it’s not elastic. They already had a car factory. A sudden price drop means their factory is worthless.

The keyword here is sudden. How sudden? Because if it weren’t sudden, then they could have chosen not to build cars in the first place.

What about poverty? That doesn’t seem to be elastic. We know they can’t afford their babies.

But they can choose not to make them in the first place. Yes but even then is not elastic enough. The need to procreate is stronger than the need to live. Let’s face it. That being said, most women in Asia wouldn’t want to make babies without some financial commitment, while most women in Europe do. Welfare program do encourage breeding among the poor.

However, if those women really want to reproduce can’t they just pick rich smart males first and get say, some financial commitment?

Rich smart males, like any males obviously want as many hot women as possible. No society will ever run out any kind of males. Males are, how can I say it? like sperms. Expendable. I start seeing libertarian bottles flying toward me here.

Expendable unless they’re rich or provide some other values toward the ruling elite/society/whatever. Women always produce some form of value because getting pregnant sucks and hence has high market value. Even women marrying other males provide some values to most males because she takes out a competitor. Not so for women doing it outside marriage.

Men often do not produce any value whatsoever for other males and hence are more likely expendable.

Now, here is another fine point. Women cannot easily pick the rich. Consensual contract to reproduce between adults are heavily regulated against women picking rich smart males.

Prohibition of prostitution is one of them. Lack of right to decide child support commitment before conception is another. Not to mention a price fixed in marriage where women always get half and more unless the males perform some complicated legal maneuver first. That ensures that most rich males are not available on marriage and prohibition of prostitution means they can’t easily commit money otherwise.

So at the end, as we see, unmeritocratic rules, namely welfare program for the poor and prohibition of prostitution for the rich does heavily affect the supply side of poverty. Namely it encourages women to pick the poor and breed poor guys with the same preferences, including voting preferences.

Supply is actually very elastic when it comes to humans’ reproduction. It’s just that the elasticity doesn’t come out of individual direct choices. It comes out of sexual selection choices, which imply extinction of some genes and proliferation of others. That one is just not palatable enough among voters.

Comments (0)

December 2, 2010

Women Are Sex Objects as Sure as Michael Jordan is a Basket Ball Player

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Bad Sex, Bad Women, Ball Player, Balls, Baseball, Basket Ball, Faith, Feminazis, Freedom Of Religion, Hot Sex, Hot Women, Jobs, Michael Jordan, Money, Persuasion, Sex Hot, Sex Objects, Stupid Idea, Ugly Women, Women Sex — admin @ 11:55 pm

Fair enough. I just feel funny when I said that and curious about your reaction would be.

This really should be another topic.

NEVER in this forum or anywhere I said women shouldn’t have gun or shouldn’t choose for her life. In fact, I would encourage it. She has right for her body, I have right for my cash. That’s it. Fair enough? Women, especially ugly women, shouldn’t have right to interfere on how I would spend my money consensually. That’s violating my right there. Clear?

If some women do not want to be seen as sex object, then fine. Most of the time, I would stay away from them and they would stay away from me. No problem. No biggy. They can hang around with other wush… (I mean morally upright politically correct effeminate) males.

Also I do not mean being sex object is a bad thing. Hot women are sex object as sure as Michael Jordan is a basket ball player. Of course, Michael can play baseball too. It’s just that baseball is not how he mainly add values to the market. When women can be sex object, they will be above males. What other jobs you get paid so well doing something you already know without training? More money, more power. What is so bad with that?

No body has a right to force anyone to change his mind. It’s like freedom of religion. People held far more unreasonable beliefs than I am based on faith. We tolerate that. I think the way feminazis want people to stop thinking women as sex object is beyond consensual persuasion.

Not allowing employer to propose groping hot employee is also wrong. It’s force and that’s wrong. If all males want to think women as sex objects, it’s males’ right. Women also have plenty of stupid idea and we let them think freely right?

By the way, I think it’s time you guys start growing balls and think outside the box those feminazis enclosed you. Again, I can’t force you.

Also I don’t expect you will change your mind. It’s hardwired in your gene. I read something about white people that’s you probably disagree. Capitalism is not really white’s trade mark. Ming dinasty is capitalistic too and the Chinese often has the smallest government. If there is anything unique about Europeans is their (Ayn Rand will disagree with me on this) sense of equality and their respect toward women. Democracy (equal power for everyone), Monogamy (equal reproductive success for everyone), and socialism (equal wealth for everyone) are all made in Europe. As if something is wrong if one guy is ubber alles.

As a capitalist that believe in meritocracy, I think that’s bad. But what can I say? You’re the most advance civilization for now. Maybe I am wrong.

The essence of my idea is that all prohibition against consensual act is bad because it’s effectively a market distortion that misproperly align people’s interest toward productivity. I believe government regulation on sex and reproduction is the BIGGEST market distortion and hence the one should be fought most.

I don’t believe your genes decide your productivity. I know plenty of poor high IQ people and rich low IQ people. People used to say the Jews, Black, Asians, Non White, Jin, Roma, Armenian, Palestinians, Arabs, Chinks, as inferior. Well fine. They have a right for their opinion, while I disagree of course. My say is, let them proof it. Let the market decide. I am sure, the market will show that eventually, it’s individuals rather than their ethnic that’ll give wealth to those who are productive. I may be wrong. Whatever that maybe, let the market decide.

Commercialization (which is 90% of libertarianism according to Madonna in “Material Girl”) has motivate males (and a lot of women) to be diligent, industrious, and productive. But wealth means little if someone else decides what we can buy with our wealth, which is what happens now due to many restrictions. Why not allow males to buy what most males truly want? Sexual service from beautiful girls. I am sure motivation to be wealthy will be much more and we will get even richer.

Marriage, and monogamy, when non consensually enforced through governments’ restriction, is simply the biggest market distortion. It’s far more dangerous than income tax, welfare program, tariff, and trades.

Free market has improved our computer speed by 2 every 5 years. Free market have improved our wealth. Free market have improved our standard of living. Guess what? All those achievement will go to whoever make most kids. Wealth distribution, redistribution, crime, genocide, or simply marriage and inheritance, ALL will go to those who make kids. When you inherit your wealth, the kid is only (at most) half yours right?

So why not extend free market to what truly matters, reproduction. Let the market decide who breed. Commercialization of computer makes computer faster. Commercialization of sex makes the productive more breed more.

Comments (0)

Older Posts »