Proper Alignment
Putting Business Common Sense in All Other Areas of Life
Forewords
I see a better world where poverties are gone, all kids have rich dads, and even the poorest people have reasonably enough food, shelter, and cash capital to start a business. I want to see that happening with more rather than less meritocracy for this ideal to have any chance of being realistic. I want to make that happen. Will you help me?
As I
The conservative
The libertarian
The difference between dividend like welfare and social welfare is that under social welfare, those who make more kids get more money. Under dividend like welfare, those who make more kids have to buy citizenship from those who make less kid. That way, the poor has enough capital to start a business, go to school, etc. and still have strong intensive to be productive. Moreover, all the other inefficient social programs, like restrictions of trade, and public education, can go away replaced by that dividend welfare.
Nowadays, those excuses are still valid though, and this
straight forward welfare, can be the cheapest way to swat it down. After all,
what’s truly harmful from wealth re
Some of you would quickly point out that killing all parasites (which, properly understood, will consist of 98% of the population), will solve all poverty problem. Well, it wouldn’t work because it’ll be too politically incorrect. Even if it’ll work, it’ll be like trivially cheating right?
Think it this way, say you choose to spend less. Then of course you’ll get richer, but your life will be less comfortable. Any mediocre people can figure that out. Something worth learning would be something like how to achieve higher utility function with less money. For example, if you’re spending so much money buying shits and then using that money to buy food instead. Then your spending stays the same, or even less, yet your happiness goes up. Now that would be something smart right?
The same way, currently, so many people are spending huge amount of money to buy bullshits. Why? Because someone else decides how they should spend their money. A better proper alignment between productivity and individual’s interests will arrange that money are spent in ways that maximizes someone’s’ happiness.
The truth is, unlike most people, my ideas of how the world should be change all the time as I learn more and more facts. In fact, I am mostly unideological. A libertarian, for example, has strong prejudice against governments’ intervention and believes that the market is perfectly right. I don’t. Many times I thought and still think the libertarian is wrong. In some cases, I think I am correct, most of the time, they’re right though. Still I think the libertarian is right due to sheer luck coincidence. In any case, I change my mind again based on the new evidences.
For example, like libertarians, knowing how poor and inefficient governments’ performances are, I tended to support individuals’ freedom rather than collective’s freedom to oppress individuals. However, I realized latter that limited localized collective freedom do not hurt individual freedom so much given that people are often able to simply vote with their foot somewhere else. Moreover, collective freedom creates intersociety competition, which is the main and natural cause of individual freedom.
In
On the other hand, when
Latter, long centuries of stable “happy” society during the Ming and Ching, Chinese technological progress deteriote to the point that it’s far lower than Europeans’ technology that keep being tested by inter society competition among themselves. The same lack of inter-society competition that plagued the Chinese society from 14th to 19th century is the same mechanism that explained bigger influence of governments’ intervention, anti technology environmentalists, and religious right wings in Western countries nowadays.
The only way, a society gets rich, if it has a lot of other rich competitors to inspire them.
Hence, unlike most libertarians, or objectivists, I wouldn’t
support the ideas of one country attacking another country under the pretext of
enforcing freedom. The secular
Hence, I changed my mind.
On the other hand, when I heard that the market don’t
perform perfectly under monopoly, I thought that’s a good case for governments’
monopoly. You see, at that time, I had a high tolerance for collective freedom
to make decision. However, after I compared the price of electricity, and phone
service in
Helping the poor is not something we’ll expect the market will take care of. However, facts show that governments prevent the rich from helping the poor. Governments prevent many private donations. Governments prevent many mutually consensual arrangements. Finally, governments’ sex laws against consensual acts tend to encourage the poor to do something they otherwise wouldn’t want or shouldn’t do: Keep breeding beyond their capability to support kids. Most people, including the poorest ones will be better of under straight forward free market rather than when governments get involved.
The African wouldn’t starve if their governments’ are
libertarian. Both consumers in rich countries and the African would be better
off if farms are not subsidized in western countries. Tsunamis victims will get
more private donation if governments do not prevent it. Many religious groups,
like Mormons, Jehovah Witness, and Christians would love to have their God as
“donation sponsor” if governments do not “protect” people from apostasy. Many
Jewish capitalists would love to hire cheaper Palestinian workers. Many
peaceful Palestinians would prefer free trades with the Jews rather than
kicking all Jews abruptly from
Even libertarians think that governments have but one purpose, security. The truth is, “Where do you get your safety the most?” Privately sold keys and lock or governments’ cops? I thought cops are dependable I didn’t bother locking my door. Well, I was wrong and I learned it the hard way. Governments are more in business of “protecting” people from superior alternatives than against in-consensual harmful acts, often under the pretext of protecting you.
Good things don’t happen that naturally. Thanks to government. Some would say that it’ll still work if we eliminate corruption and ensure that governments are doing stuffs “correctly.” I’ll explain that most arrangements suggested are often simply not practical or Nash equilibrium.
It’ll explain a lot latter. For now, I’ll just say that once we understand humans’ real nature, we’ll easily see that it just won’t happen. Some suggest instilling morality to change humans’ nature. We’ll see that it can be tautologically proven that humans’ basic real nature, at least the important ones, will not change. Humans’ natures are to survive in the gene pool. Even if we can change that nature, the next generation will be those that can’t be “tricked” that easily. See? Not that I oppose governments, but even the poorest are often more likely to be better of under free market than otherwise.
Under very few circumstances, I see that the poor will be
made worse off for the same amount of wealth
Some of the scientific evidences are well known. Any ideas on how the world should be must be practical and stable. In Math terms they must be a Nash equilibrium. Nash equilibrium means that each individuals face a situation where what they do is the most profitable things they’ll do. Forget a fairy tales that we can give governments power without corruption. When a person has a power to corrupt, he’ll corrupt, because that’s what maximizes his interests.
Though I am not sure, the stable arrangements are often the
win-win arrangements. The win lose ones are either unstable or impractical.
Allowing people to become rich by unfairly enslaving the poor will cause
people’s rebellion because the poor will be better of rebelling. On the other
hand, too much re
Also pareto optimality is a good sign. If 2 parties have conflicts of interests about one issue, the profited party can compensate the losing party. In business, an arrangement that I got your car is good for me but bad for you. However, simply not getting your car will not be the best solution either. So I compensate you by giving you money so that we’re both profited under some circumstances.
We may be able to do the same thing on other political
issues. For example, the oil companies are profited by wars that increase oil
price and hence support the war. The families of soldiers that die in
Another aspect is whether the total “pie” gets bigger or not. Obviously production of more bread is better than production of more nukes even though the latter can also be quite Pareto optimal and is a Nash equilibrium.
All these issues can be solved concurrently if and only if individuals’ interests are properly aligned with societies’ yield as a whole.
For example, the Qin state, rewarded their soldiers based on the number of enemies’ head collected. Had the rewarding mechanism be left to the market, soldiers will have bigger intensives to collect gold booties then opponents’ head. Here, public goods called “killing enemies” are under produced by the market system because soldiers’ time resources are allocated to other private ends of looting. Hence, the Qin quite successfully addressed these market externalities problems by giving bonus to soldiers to do their job well. This leads to Qin’s success in uniting “Everything under (Chinese) heaven”.
All those are well known. The much bigger issues, however,
resolve around ideas beyond what’s known. There are many facts that are way
beyond what’s
Here, I try to convey the hidden surprising facts that I didn’t know for a long time.
Often I would use analogies from business perspective to analyze other aspects of life. I found that such approach often produce factually correct, though politically incorrect, conclusions.
For example, evolution theory tells us that relationships between males and females are quite similar to the relationship between port folio managers and investors. Port folio managers want as many investors as possible. Investors want the best port folio managers. Like Yin and Yang, these verifiable facts can comprehensively and correctly predict countless worlds’ political arrangements.
Now, any of you that have watch governments’ endorsed movie
that glorify mediocrity would
Not knowing important hidden facts not only have caused me, and many of us, reduced happiness. Moreover, I have promoted causes that I wouldn’t do had I known better. Hence, lack of knowledge had also caused me to mess others’ life.
How should I explain it? Well, let’s start from this. Bill Gates donated $30 billion dollars to poor people. That’s in addition to job creation, technological progress, and various economic contributions that benefit many. If everyone is like Bill, then we don’t have poor people, obviously. In fact, if we have millions of people like Bill, the rest of us don’t have to work anymore. So why can’t everyone, or at least more people, be like Bill?
What are the issues? I mean, what are the real issues?
Table of Contents
Real
Issues Behind Ethical Issues
The
Needs, Causes, and Effects of Proper Alignment
The
Changing Ideas of Ideal Worlds
The
Real Origin of Many Contemporary Different Values
Real
World Application of Differing Point of Views
Envy,
the Main Cause of Prejudice
Subjective
Nature of Superiority
Scarcity
within Potential Abundance
Laws
Regulating Consensual Sex
Linking
a Man’s Reproduction Cost to a Man’s Wealth.
Reducing
the Influence of Envy
Feed
the Needy, Give Them Cash
Get
Freedom and Protection from the Needy
Don’t
Curse Privilege, Acquire It!
Regulation
toward Productivity
Two
Things You Need to Know to Reduce Your Tax.
Giving
Labors Full Fruit of Their Labor
Sex
Laws against Consensual Sex, the Biggest Market Distortion
Copyright Notice
This e-book is, surprisingly, copyrighted. After some edition eliminating grammar errors, spelling errors, and bad ways to express ideas, it’ll be sold as textbooks for all schools for some real money. After which, this e-book will no longer be available to leeches like you.
Till now I am still waiting for a publisher that will mass produce this e-book into a paper book. My main aim is that if you think this book will make our world a better place, I want the whole world to read it. Otherwise, tell me about it.
Real Issues Behind Ethical Issues
Which of the following strategies you think are “better” or “ethical”?
In the first strategy, a group of males attack other group of males. The winners kill all the males. Then the winners rape the females. The winners live a harsh life. The losers are death. The women have their choices overridden.
In the second strategy, a group of males make a lot of money productively by serving others through capitalism. The one that’ll survive better in the gene pool, called the “winners”, give the losers play stations, condom supply, and free vasectomy. Then the winners consensually attract or bribe females for sex and then make lots of kids. Those who serve the market the most make thousands of kids and knock up many more chickz. The winners live an abundance life; the losers spend their last moments in the gene pool happily (with TV and massage parlors visits). The women can happily choose rich smart males and get knocked up with better genes that are “proven” to be able to make money.
Well, most conservative pious Muslim-Judeo-Christians would quickly point out that the first strategy is definitely ethical. I mean, it’s explicitly prescribed on the bible. The bible does indeed show some practical path to attain true happiness.
Ain’t God just rock?
All right, I am being sarcastic here. It really is explicitly prescribed in the bible. However, I am sure that most conservatives would simply found an apologetic explanation for any part of the bible that’s too politically or factually incorrect.
But still, many conservatives promote rules that in-consensually reduce gene pool survival of those they do not desire. Anti prostitution, anti polygamy laws, anti cloning, and anti artificial insemination, for example, tend to reduce the number of females rich smart males can (and will) knock up.
We know that many rich smart males are, or at least once were, conservatives. So the enemies the conservatives are exterminating are often their own kind. Many conservatives’ males, like I was, would switch side quickly once they read this book.
Some people would quickly point out to me that women are not whores. Those who are whores are evil, bad, sinful, and criminal. Women won’t just prefer the rich. Watch governments’ encouraged movies for proofs. Sex is actually free. Marriage is ideal for women. Feminists support women’s right. That’s not the purpose of anti prostitution law. Sex laws are there to protect women. We need better morality. Bla bla Yadda yadda yadaaaaaa… These are one of the good samples where the real issues are not what are told. Well, it’ll take a long to explain in the forewords. You got to read the whole book okay?
I wouldn’t suggest the first strategy, at least not in our contemporary much more affluence society where we can often pay to get what we want rather than resorting to violent. Thanks to prosperity, we do not need whip and chain to motivate people to work. We can just pay them. There are more and more cases, as we get more and more prosper, we can just use money to solve many conflicts usually solved by war much more fairly, humanely, and productively.
The first strategy doesn’t work out as well
as planned though. It took another 2000 years after it’s written in Torah
before God’s people realize that violence alone don’t solve problems. Life is
Yin and Yang, Dove and Hawk. Being too hawkish and you’ll do your self a
By whacking those who do no harm to us, we
raise hostility from people that could have been our ally and do our self a
The Israelites slaughtered the Midianites and the Palestines and
then got badly whacked by the
It’s simply a matter of common sense then,
for the “moderate” Jesus, reinterprets biblical teaching to something like love
your enemy, to the great
Of courses, cruelty sometimes works out well
too, such as in the case of Genghis Khan, who knows how to retreat or stop when
he had too. By antagonizing the rest of our ancestors, Gengish
Khan had easier time uniting the Mongol. Hitler also had easier time uniting
So if the first strategy is ethical, the second one, where people earn money productively and attract females consensually, must be holy divine because it’s even better.
Now, how much better?
First of all, we don’t need to be smarter
than God to come up with better ways than what’s supposedly prescribed or
inspired by the bible. Religious doctrines are 95%-100% humans’ interpretation.
About 80% of which are simply humans’ prejudices. The other 19% are weak
reasoning. At most there is 1-2%, if any, God’s revelation at all, deeply
buried, masked, censored,
Understanding humans’ natures, for example, can allow us to more accurately predict the typical religious interpretations that are widely accepted than reading the scripture.
Even the most honest and objective scripture interpretation is only as smart as the interpreters. To come up with better ways than the bible, we need only to be smarter than the Israelites’ religious leaders 4000 years ago. Moreover, most religious leaders prefer popularity and prejudices rather than facts. With contemporary sciences and relatively higher IQ, of course we know what to do better.
Secondly, we notice that a few things remain the same between the two strategies. The smarter, stronger, slier, realistic, rational, mischievous, technologically advanced, “superior” males are the one more likely to survive in the gene pool between the two strategies.
Observations show that stuffs that do not change between the two situations are unlikely to change between any situations. Smarter humans are more likely to get more of what they want. This happens whatever it is and whatever the circumstances are.
The communists, for example, want to get rid
History shows that dynasties fall and rise mainly by the influence of a handful smart people rather than by the influence of many mediocre.
For example, the Zhou that successfully instilled nationalism to its people was defeated by the Qin that properly moved a few key smart players. Of course, relative to contemporary capitalism, every body is worst of at that time. The losers, the 400,000 mediocre Zhou’s soldiers are buried alive. The winner, the smart general Bai Qi, were forced to commit suicide. The big winner, the emperor Ying Zheng, had his whole family slaughtered some one generation after. Life is full of shit if we keep killing each other.
The need to motivate the best and brightest to serve productively shows up in history again and again. In the battle of Red Wall, Zhuge Liang, defeated Cao Cao. Hundreds of years after that, a smart general, Napoleon, defeated a lot of feudalistic European kingdom, signaling the importance of motivating and allowing the best and brightest to raise through the rank.
Re
We’ll see latter that
Disparity of desired results, such as wealth and gene pool survival is simply the natural order. That’s how we become the smartest species in the planet.
Though fluctuating, on average, for millions of years, the males that survive in the gene pool for all species are males that can survive and signal that capability to survive to females.
Gorilla that survive in the gene pool are the strong ones because the stronger Gorilla can kick ass the weaker one. That’s why the polar bear is white. That’s because the white polar bear get more fish and hence can survive better in the gene pool.
The same way, smarter males can earn more money and hence can support more kids than poorer males. Hence, human males that survive in the gene pool are the ones that are smarter and greedier in comparison to all other known species.
With abundance that capitalism brings, starvation is no longer the mechanism to evolve. However, capability to survive is not enough. Males also need to signal their capability to survive even though the “advertising” of the capability will actually reduce the actual capability. It’s the same reason why companies pay for advertising, even though the cost of advertising adds costs to the product, which either increase the price or reduce the quality of the product.
Advertising reduce the actual “value” of the product, but increase the “perceived” value of the product, which what matters more. That’s also the same reason why peacocks have long tail. While the tails do not help the peacock survive, it helps peacock males to signal his capability to survive to females.
Hence, humans’ males that survive in the gene pool nowadays have strong preferences not only to hoard wealth, but to also flaunt it, especially to females. Those are the main characteristics of human males. In addition, human males are also power hungry, status seeking and ignorantly prideful, etc… compared to the other species.
Most devastatingly, many human males often develop this “thing” against richer smarter sexier males to better compete against superior competitors. In general humans tend to want to get rid of gene pool survival of those they feel superior to them. Such preferences, called envy, are un-appeasable. Successful sexier smarter more attractive males cannot, and should not, appease envy because the very thing that envy people want is your failure. Moreover, even if you fail, hence fulfilling what they want, they’ll still hate you for your potential to be successful.
What can a Jew do so that the Nazi love him? Nothing. A typical Nazi will hate the Jews no matter what. What can a promiscuous playboy do so that the conservative radical religious fundamentalist stop hating him? Nothing. What can a sexy beautiful porn star goddess need to do so that ugly radical feminists support legalization of pornography? Nothing. What can a financially productive capitalist do so that some strain of hardcore commie (not all commies) would support free market? Nothing.
Unlike needy starving people, who will call you Boss for a little money, Envy people cannot be appeased. At the least, we cannot appease their envy “side.” At the least, definitely, envy cannot be appeased cost efficiently. For every appeasement toward envy there are always other individuals that’ll switch to progress side for cheaper cost. Those who are so filled with envy preferences will hate you if you’re hostile to them. They’ll still hate you even if you’re friendly. Yet indirect wasteful appeasement of causes motivated mainly by envy is where most of our economic potential goes in all countries. All these happen because of confusions caused by prejudices, lies, subjectivity, and straight forward factual errors.
What are the origins of envy? How do we stop
it? What are the facts? How do lies get developed? We’ll
Certain things won’t change. It’s simply natural that humans that survive in the gene pool will be smarter and greedier. We cannot change the direction of positive feedback evolution. However, we can ensure that people earn their place in the gene pool by consensual fair competition rather than war.
Moreover, a few important things do change. As you see, the second strategy is totally victimless (in a sense)! Some would argue that if the condom donation is not consensual then it’s not victimless. C’mon? Saying that is kind of penny wise pound folly. In more exact term, money wise, gene pool survival folly.
More importantly, under the second strategy, virtually all sides are made better of relative to the first strategy. Why? That’s because, in the second strategy, humans’ nature are more properly aligned toward productivity. However, the first strategy is more natural. Hence that’s often what happens. Can
But why do people resort to strategies more similar to the second strategy rather than the first one? Why?
Let’s ask an easier question. Since when?
The Needs, Causes, and Effects of Proper Alignment
For thousands of years, humans live do not
change. Our ancestors killed each other. Technology progress is little. Only in
Of course, some Buddhists would
After thousands of years waiting, a
deliverer has come. The name is Adam Smith. Adam Smith,
is the father of freedom. He observes how wealth is acquired in monogamy
abiding
The problem is that those parasites need money for food so they don’t die. So what if they die? People that will die if they do not have a little cash will value cash more. Yes, so what? So they’ll do more for money. Like what? Like supporting or denouncing libertarian agenda. Poor needy people are the cheapest ally anybody can get per capita. As long as they can vote or wield gun as well as the mediocre, they’re the kind of ally we want to buy.
Adam observed that countries that follow free trades are more likely to be richer than countries that do not. Adam is not really the first actually. Two thousands five hundreds years ago, Lao Tze did the same observations with the same conclusions.
Latter, a math based economic class showed me that under the assumptions that humans are selfish and a few other assumptions, under capitalism, what maximizes one’s interest is what maximizes productivity as a whole. That statement is called welfare theorem. Don’t we love welfare? You see capitalism significantly align humans’ interest to productivity.
The result is awesome. After the 18th century, humans’ living standards keep going up and up and up. All those happen mainly not because the rich have sharper whips to motivate their slave workers to work. Neither does it caused by more poverty among the poor due to more efficient looting schemes. Those happen because of more productivity. More productivity is caused by more intensive to be productive. Intensive to be productive come from proper alignments between interests and productivity.
While the logic is willing the assumptions are weak. Well, not really weak actually, but the assumptions are less than perfect. Many have challenged the validity of such conclusions. Most are plain wrong. Some are debatable. John Nash, for example, points out that marginal cost do not always diminish. While this is actually a good thing, it can be problematic on extreme cases. Hence, he supported governments’ active role in breaking up large monopoly.
There are many other small, yet important exceptions to Adam’s rule. Analyses that show the superiority of free markets do not take into account externalities. That happens when mutually consensual acts affect third parties non-consensually. Producers of gun, for example, reduce the probability of robbery even for those who do not buy gun. This leads to lower production of gun than what’s “socially optimum.” Hence, opponent of free market might demand that government subsidizes gun in a way that’ll increase the usage of gun to some “socially optimum” level.
Also some products are non exclusive that it is virtually impossible to exclude a person from benefiting it. A machine, for example, that can turn all carbon dioxide to oxygen will benefit every human. Such companies will never pop up under free market. That’s because the non paying customers also enjoy the same benefit with the paying one. Thus, the intensive to pay will be eliminated. Without intensive to pay, people don’t pay. Without payment, there will be no such machines. That seems to then be a reasonable case for government.
Some products are non rivalry. Software and porn, are an example. Once produced, the marginal costs of sharing porn are so low. Hence, many reasonable people would reasonably think that governments, rather than the market, should produce porn to make it more cheaply available in the net.
The noble price winner leftist social democrat Chicago school spearheaded by Milton Friedman support limited governments’ active role in cushioning interest rate from market shocks, promoting education, and breaking up large monopoly. The Austrian schools believe in more straight forward capitalism. That’s the two main schools in economic nowadays.
The optimum is probably somewhere between the Chicago and Austrian school. While the market do not always coincide with what maximize productivity as a whole, the alternatives are often worse. That’s because while theoretically we can achieve more from the market, the way we achieve it often misalign humans’ nature with productivity. In Math term, governments’ intervention might work. However, the proposed solution is often not a Nash equilibrium. Hence, governments’ proposed solution simply, “don’t happen.” What will actually happen is then below the market solution.
For example, while anti monopoly law can improve productivity, it can also be used to get bribes. A phone company, for example, requires a lot infrastructure at first with low marginal cost afterward. That seems like the perfect candidate for natural monopoly and many believe that phone companies would be more efficiently managed by governments rather than competing companies.
Well, in
Here the costs of market failure due to competition among firms in business that would be more efficiently run under a monopoly in free market are still less than the cost of government failures due to lack of intensive to please customers and bribes.
In fact, in most countries, governments create most monopoly. The same way, governments’ reckless actions are often causing more market shocks than cushioning it undermining the benefit of having government cushioning market shock.
Letting government to make non rival products, like porn can yield cost inefficient low quality porn. In theory, software company like Microsoft should be owned by government so that software can be sold at the price of $0, which is the marginal cost, and hence maximizing the usage, and hence the benefit of the software. In practice, if governments decide which software to produce, chance is we’ll still be making website using notepad by now. The list can go on…
More Proper Alignments
While the market is the reigning champion both in theory and practice of maximization of productivity as a whole, there are no countries that are fully supportive toward individual freedom. Many countries have many regulations against consensual sex and penalty against consensual trade. Even the best countries will probably only embrace 20% alignments. The rest are doing it at 5% or 0%. Of course, even countries that fully support individual freedom do not necessarily maximize productivity, though as we see, all exceptions are few and debatable.
Hence, there are many rooms for improvement. If we can improve that alignment to 40% or 50%, for example, there will be more productivity. Which meritocracy alignments are more important? Which one we can sort of let go?
To understand how to properly align humans’ nature to productivity, we need to understand first what humans’ natures are.
Under economy class, we assume that humans are selfish. When humans are selfish, then the market system will take care most of the alignments between productivity and selfishness.
The assumptions of selfishness have two major weaknesses. The first is that selfishness alone does not explain other humans’ preferences. Selfishness does not explain envy, for example. Many people do not want you to get rich not because your being rich hurt his economic value. They want to prevent you from getting rich not so you give the poor more. The real reason why they do not want you to be rich is because they prefer you to be poor. Pure selfishness also does not explain altruism toward family members or others.
The second problem is what constitute selfish. If I am selfish, will I buy apple or orange? What would a selfish people prefer? Most proponent of selfish theory will say, that whatever I prefer, I will be considered selfish. However, humans have many similar interests. The differences among us are less than the similarity. Understanding those similarities will allow us to see the world more clearly. Then we can pin point more room for proper alignments.
Recent results from evolution theory address these two problems. It turns out, that humans main preferences are designed to survive in the gene pool. Quite tautologically shown, the sorts of preferences that are common among humans are preferences that are common nowadays.
Now, that answers a lot isn’t it? That answers why envy people want you to be poor is because once a male is richer, you are able to attract more females. So there will be fewer females for them. By killing you, they remove tough superior competitors and hence survive better in the gene pool. They do so instinctively because killing richer, smarter, stronger, taller, and sexier humans is an evolutionary advantageous strategy in the past, and hence a common preference nowadays.
You do not need to practice promiscuity
first to arouse their hatred. Even if you choose not to be rich, the envy will
still hate you for knowing your potential to be rich. That’s the reason why the
high IQ is often beaten up in school. That explains why many people hate wealth
Gene pool survival explains why people like to give money to kids. Giving money to their offspring will allow their offspring to live and breed, hence improving their gene pool survival.
Understanding this gene pool survival issue is very useful. From understanding this humans’ nature we can see many ways humans relationships can be made more in harmony.
For example, some products are so abundant.
When the gene pool survival lost that come from the cost of giving the product
is less than the gene pool survival gained by
One obvious sample is males’ sperm. Every
male want to donate his sperm to as many females as possible. The cost of
This information can be useful to address
the sort of products we can let governments require to
Capital is often traceable to productivity.
Allowing productive people to gain ownership of their productivity is then a
great way to provide intensive to be productive. Significant re
If we know, for example, that wealth
Say he’s so smart he makes a lot of money. Rather than asking for John’s money, government can ask for John’s genetic material. Governments can say, “Look John, it’s unfair. You win because you have better genetic codes. So we require you to knock 10,000 hot chickz up to produce off springs so that future generations can have the advantage that you have.” Now, what would John do? Would John say, “Nah, mah cock worn-out. I got one daughter I want to ensure she has all the competitive edge she has. You kidding, I got a high quality genetic material here. I should sell this stuff for money you know?”
Here, the marginal cost of
And that’s not all. When you’re rich, what do you have in abundance? Money! Rich people don’t mind a lot giving money away. Well, they do mind if they get nothing in return. However, when the gene pool survival advantage gotten is more than the little sad feeling received due to the lost of money, rich people will give the money. The poor women, for example, can sell her sexual favor to the rich and make a lot of money. The feminists that care about women’s interest will be happy. That’s because women want the best genes, and people like John, ensure that all womyn are getting it. Some feminists will indeed be happy. Most won’t though. Evolution theory can also explain why they will not, but that’s too complicated.
Alternatively, the rich can donate money to signal genetic quality. This will allow him to attract more women and survive better in the gene pool. Publicity of the effect of superior products will set a new standard the rest will follow. Those who cannot fulfill the standard then get out competed encouraging the best stuff to proliferate. The out competed often hate those who do out of envy, which explains why many condemn Bill Gates when Bill donated billions of dollars. It’s the same reason why ugly females hate porn and photo models, but that would be in a different book.
If there is going to be a forceful wealth re
That never happened and probably won’t
because there are many problems that most of you don’t even know exist. In
particular, less capable males will get fewer females, causing the preference
called envy, stopping that from working out. However, that’s still a good idea.
Most
So you see, there are plenty of rooms for improvements. What are those?
The Changing Ideas of Ideal Worlds
We all are, at least most of us, have some sense on how the world should be. Unlike most people, however, till today, my political opinion on how the world should be change all the time. So I basically repeat the sequence done by civilizations, except that I do it within a life time.
As I learn more about life, I realize that my old model is not as accurate as I thought, and that change my opinions a lot.
I don’t know who the bad guys are. At times I believed it was the greedy capitalists. Then I learn that under capitalism what maximizes individual’s profit is what maximizes productivity as a whole. So, I thought that it’s the poor commies that are evil. Then I thought the commies are deceived by the politicians. That’s because the poorest of the poorest are often made worse of by governments’ policy. Then I thought it’s the middle class that vote for the politicians who are the evil.
As of now, I think the issue is far more complex. We don’t have 2 sides pulling the rope on the opposite directions. Often there are hidden 3rd, 4th and 5th parties with hidden motives, which we don’t think exist. Most people that embrace any ideology, capitalism, socialism often see only some side of the whole picture.
I’ll give you an example, when I was a foreign Chinese college student learning computer science in US, I would consider my self a conservative. I was raised in a pious protestant Christian family. Though I like porn, my “sexual” strategy, at that time, was to find a wife to live happily ever after. I couldn’t understand why it’s “sin” to watch porn. Just 3000 years ago, we had a quite (excessively) liberal God that allow, even encourage, attacking other groups of people, killing all the males, and raping all the females. Now HE opposes porn and hentai? Why? Because it’s virtual rape? Oh well…
Even extra marital sex to a slave girl is allowed, which is kind of interesting. It could mean that the only way a woman can have sex with many males is if she’s a slave, unless prostitution and free sex is not necessarily a sin, which is also quite likely.
I didn’t understand why conservatives insist that many alternatives to lifelong monogamous marriage should be prohibited. I thought, based on my conservative upbringing, life long monogamy is the best way anyway. If it is the best way, why does it have to be enforced? When something is good, people will already want to do it and the market will take care of it right? At least usually. That’s the main fundamental motivation behind economic conservatism.
However, I saw little reasons to oppose sex laws at that time. Some mutually consensual sexual relationships outside marriage are indeed non victimless. I realized that when I saw a huge dent on my pay check due to tax that goes to social security and welfare programs. Then I saw a fat black lady in supermarket paying for her food with food stamps. My pattern recognition capability quickly imagines that she must have had 5 kids outside marriage. “Hik Hik… It was my money,” I said to my self. If she can’t afford kids, why can’t she tell her boyfriend to use condom or something? Why can’t she aim for a more financially responsible male, like Mike Tyson, Michael Jordan, or Milton Friedman?
Conservatives use this phenomena a lot to raise support for their cause. The argument is that encouragement of marriage will create some financial responsibility for the kids. Women will have compelling reasons to ensure financial commitment from a husband before making kids, hence reducing welfare. I accepted that notion with lots of suspicions. The amount of financial support a male give to his child is more of a function of his wealth rather than his marriage status. Even unmarried males are forced to pay child support. So why still need marriage? Also, some forms of victimless consensual sex are also prohibited.
Prostitutions and polygamy are 2 obvious examples. Some males, as we know, are rich enough they’re able to support many wives and mistresses. Hence, as long as it is consensual, some polygamy will not cause any financial burden to society. Why it is also prohibited? Conservatives would argue that it’s because the arrangements are so bad that the only way women can get into it must be because of some fraud or coercion. Murder, for example, is so bad it is a crime. We don’t bother asking the corpse whether it was consensual when he was murdered or not. We sort of know it’s so bad it got to be unconsensual, unless strong evidence showing otherwise. As a male, I don’t like to share females either, though will not absolutely mind. However, I didn’t know what women want. So I thought that’s a reasonable explanation and I have little evidence to challenge that.
Conservatives argue that even if it were consensual, it is in a sense forced, because women are economically forced by circumstances to become prostitutes or mistresses. However, many women love to perform in porn even though they’re already rich. Those women are pretty enough for marriage too, yet they still prefer to be prostitutes or mistresses undermining economically forced theory. In fact many pretty smart career women don’t get married and enjoy free sex lifestyle.
To the opposite, marriages don’t rock too
much either. I’ve heard many women got beaten up by her boyfriend or husband.
On those more obviously “bad” circumstances, societies will ask first whether
it is consensual or not. Many women want to get a divorce but cannot because
she cannot afford a lawyer to do it. Hence she is economically forced to stay
in her miserable marriage, with laws against adultery. It’s pretty common in
Conservatives would argue that even if those women agree, it’s still a bad thing for her because their doing something that they will regret latter when they get older. That’s very suspicious. Freedom includes acts that we may regret latter. Making a mistake is part of the learning. As a businessman, I know for a fact that successful people make more mistakes than mediocre people. Then what? Then my ex high school classmates want to get a divorce but is being prevented from doing so by the law. To me, it’s obvious that marriage, like prostitution, can also be very regrettable.
In many countries, it’s so easy for a husband to divorce his wife. That should undermine the idea that marriage is crucial to ensure males’ financial support. Women can sell her sexual favor for more money outside monogamous marriage because then they can aim for richer males. My house maid’s father wanted to divorce his wife for a younger female. Her dad wants half of his wife’s inherited house and land and tells the maid that she too is responsible to support him. That seems like women’s exploitation to me. What a jerk I thought. Obviously marriage situation is quite bad for women either. Why conservatives put more attention to fight porn rather than to fight marriage?
Life goes on. I was fortunate to get fired early, and hence economically forced to start a business. Hence, I was able to reach substantial prosperity relatively quickly. I started calling all pretty women that have approached me before for potential girlfriend and wife. Most of them are married. Hik… Hik… The winners are not even richer or smarter than I am, that’s like cheating. One of the single girl then became my girlfriend. I was surprised when she said that she liked me because I am smart and rich. I thought women want love and nothing else. I thought women want unconditional greatest love and commitment I can only give to one very special person: myself. Obviously there are many other stalkers that are more committed to her.
Moreover, I once read a Christian book
saying that males shouldn’t aim for pretty females and females shouldn’t aim
for rich males. As a male, I know that males want pretty females. Then I also
knew that females aim for rich males. So why do the Christians
It raises my curiosity so much. I keep wondering. Then I stumbled on a bunch of books that use evolution theory to reduce humans’ nature to few basic principles. Those books caught my attention. As someone good at math, I learn well mainly on subjects that can be coherently reduced to a few basic intuitive principles.
All this time, people argue for what women’s want or what humans’ basic interests are. All I know from economic classes are that we, humans, have “utility function” which we maximize. But what is our utility function? What do males and females want? All this time, we shape our beliefs of what the world should be acting as our models are “comprehensive” for all situations without bother looking at what the situations are. We just hear arguments after arguments. But what’s the reality? What are the facts? What are the sciences? What do humans’ typically want?
And you know what shocking facts I found out? This is the first one. The real effects behind most sex laws against consensual acts are to ration females to less desirable males. We’ll see latter that those are the real reasons either.
If that’s true, then it’ll explain a lot isn’t it? That explains why the markets don’t take care of it. The capitalistic market systems only protect us from coercive non consensual force. Capitalism does not protect anyone from competitors giving better offers. In fact, to the opposite, capitalism encourages people to give better and better offers. Under laissez-faire capitalism, and only under laissez-faire, the greatest, richest, and most influential among us shall be those give and fulfill better offers to others.
Rationing females to less desirable males explain why polygamy and prostitutions are politically incorrect. That’s because under polygamy or prostitutions, rich males can get many females. That will then reduce females available to less desirable males. That explains why conservatives want to convince us that societies’ choices can “outperform” individual choices to promote women’s interest. It’s a lie. They’re not fighting for women’s interest. They’re fighting for their own good. You see how some scientific facts can succinctly cut through lots of moral arguments?
For you who have never practiced abstinence, you’d be surprised to know I was shocked. All this time I was told that porn and prostitution are so bad for women it should be prohibited even when it is consensual. Huge amount of police powers are channeled to oppress consensual sex because it was so bad. Yet the real purpose is not that those acts are bad. To the opposite, the real reason is that the acts are so good many want to prevent those acts to encourage less attractive alternatives that benefit some third parties with less to offer.
Still, I didn’t think that’s a big deal. After all, I still hated the liberal commies for promoting higher tax. Sure many sex laws violate individual freedom. But there is plenty of more important freedom to fight for, like economic freedom. Perhaps some women can indeed be happy in polygamy, prostitutions, and porn, just like some males can happily and consensually commit suicide. What’s the point of fighting for, suicide right for example? Much opposition against prostitution, porn, and polygamy comes from women anyway. That suggests that majority of women are better of without those politically incorrect sexual relationships somehow. Perhaps women will be happier with a loving devoted husband than sharing a rich male that will of course be less devoted. But why do women protests? If those women do not like prostitution they can choose not to. Why do they oppose consensual choices for women?
Now, this is the second shocking fact. While males aim for large quantity of pretty females, females aim for high quality males. So? Therefore, females often prefer to share a sexier male than be the only one for a mediocre one. So what? I didn’t know what sexy means for males. Wouldn’t society be better of if males and females concentrate on productivity rather than learning what women consider sexy? The latter is infamously incomprehensible right? Talking to women means talking to creatures that never need to be realistic to survive in the gene pool right? So why bother? Really?
This is the third shocking fact. For males, sexy mainly means rich and smart. If you’re a male, think it this way, sexy for females mean pretty and smart right? Of course you take into account other facts like boob sizes, class, clothing selections, college major, but what’s the main turn on for females? Pretty… Well, rich to males are like pretty to females.
So what? Because males prefer to aim for as many hot chickz as possible, do you know what kind of intensives these facts would give males to be rich? Even if we give cash to everyone that’s enough for them to eat and have fun without work for the whole of their live, we can still provide even bigger intensives to be productively rich if all consensual sex are not regulated. Deregulating sex will create a far stronger intensives to be rich than what we have now. That means there will be more prosperity.
A corollary from this third fact is that donation, like big mansions, and expensive cars signals wealth. Donations also signal willingness to share. That improves men’s desirability in front of women. Males that donate money become sexier, attract more females, and survive better in the gene pool. Humans’ basic instincts and preferences are designed for gene pool survival. We are happy if we achieve a condition where we improve our gene pool survival.
If sex is deregulated and economy is kept as meritocracy as possible, humans productivity can be so huge. The amount of work required to produce, a ton of rice, for example, will get less and less. You can work as CEO or entrepreneurs, for example, and produce money worth 1000 clothes within, say, an hour. So, one full fledged wearable clothing for the poor costs like .27 seconds of your time. Three thousand years ago, Solomon in all of his glory didn’t wear clothes as good as the flowers in the field. We do thanks to capitalism.
With .27 seconds per clothe, the expected gene pool survival lost from being productive and donating can be much less than the gene pool survival gained by donating. Combine that with the tautology that our strong preferences have strong link to our gene pool survival with the exception of some small flukes and guess what we’ll get? In plain language, that means that the bad feeling caused by the inconvenience of being more productive and donating is less than the good feeling gained by the prestige of donating for significant number, if not majority, of humans especially males. Ask waitresses. Males tip more.
So what? So it’ll be much happier to those who give than to those who receive. We’ll live in a far more abundance world than what we currently are. Properly tuned, people can be encouraged to be highly productive, out of selfish pride and ego, to be the one that’s productive rather than to be the one receiving food for free, even if they can eat for free for the whole of their life.
We’ve seen this happening. We hear about rich males like Bill Gates donating billions of dollars, to the outrage of many mediocre people, which do not donate. Under purely selfish theory, we would expect the other way around right? Most of us would think that Bill Gates would get mad when he got sober and realized what he was tricked into, and the mediocre people would all praise the act. The truth is the opposite. Of course, the way sex laws against consensual sex work means gene pool survival of productive people like Bill, will get less and less while the “relatively parasitic” people, like the rest of us, will get more and more. So, depending on the amount and arrangements, sex laws against consensual sex are so bad, it can do more harm to economy than welfare.
We also see why a country that subsidizes their farm products and sell it to other countries are condemned and criticized by the countries receiving such subsidy. Say you pay tax and the money goes to subsidize some farmers so the farmers sell food at cheaper price to me. Then you pay part of my lunch. I should thank you and you should be mad at me right. The reality is the opposite.
I’ll show later that capitalism is so abundant that often, straight forward cash welfare can be much cheaper and advantageous than providing jobs and education. Teach a man how to fish and he’ll be restricted to be a fisherman for the whole of his life while paying the opportunity cost of losing more productive endeavors. Give a man enough fishes that'll cost the same amount of money with the fishing tutorial, and he can sell that fish to pursue more productive endeavors. Teach the whole nation how to fish and soon we'll need more money to subsidize fishing industry. Give people enough cash to start of and the market will take care the rest ensuring that occupations that'll maximize productivity as a whole are the one picked by the people.
However, people still want jobs and education rather than cash because they want the pride and illusion that they are capable to be productive. That “pride welfare,” can then be a far more expensive welfare than the “food and shelter welfare.” The biggest problems against productivity are not lack of money to feed the poor. Capitalism is abundant. The biggest problems against productivity are the maintenance of false prejudiced to falsely assigned pride and recognition of productivity to those who simply aren’t.
You see how learning humans’ nature forced me to keep changing my beliefs of what the rules in this world should be? You see why I keep changing my mind on what the world should be?
This e-book, is not meant to change your opinion on what the world should be to any particular direction. At the least, not to any major political ideology major ideology I’ve known of. The fact that one side is wrong does not mean that the others are absolutely right. Most people simply don’t bother asking and will vehemently support only evidences supporting their prejudice. I know. I was like that.
The Real Origin of Many Contemporary Different Values
We do have different values, interests, and beliefs. Hence, we have different ideas of what the world should be and what everyone should do.
If I can rule the world, for example, I
would say that the right thing to do is for the whole world to pay tax to me
and for all pretty females to have sex with only me. Of course I will say all
the other alternatives are wrong, offensive, evil, heretical, and dangerous for
minors. You, of course, would
Now if I promote that value I wouldn’t have enough followers to support my idea. For a “value” to have power it has to benefit many. So I moderated my value. Rather than coming up with values that benefits only me, I come up with values that benefits those who are like me. I get benefited too, though not as much as my self centered value becomes the norm. However, I get more support as more people are supporting my values.
If a male is middle class, which is the ruling class in democratic country, of course he wants everyone to pay tax. Then he’ll want the tax money to go for social programs only the middle class will benefit. He’ll want all women to aim for the middle class. Women that want the rich are called whore and women that want the poor are called sluts. A middle class don’t aim to have a harem. He knows he won’t have that though secretly wanting it too if possible. He aims for females rationing.
The same way, if a male is unsexy, obviously he or she will “believe” that all sex
must be within lifelong monogamous marriage that effectively rations females to
every male. He’ll argue then that all opinions suggesting otherwise are wrong,
offensive, evil, heretical, and dangerous for minors. Of course, sexier males
would
If a male is a very sexy liberal, obviously he believes that the rest of us have to ensure all kids are fed properly. That way, he can greedily knock up many women and produce many kids at societies’ expenses.
If a male is both sexy and wealthy, which is quite natural because sexy and wealthy correlate very strongly for male, he’ll promote freedom of all consensual sex, but ensure that no body is in-consensually forced to support other kids. Such arrangements, called libertarianism will provide strong gene pool survival advantage for the highly productive “superior” males, which are, not surprisingly, libertarians. Surprisingly, many ancient religions are quite close with such arrangements but are then interpreted very differently as the mediocre can vote.
Males that are neither rich nor sexy, will of course oppose libertarianism with a lot of erroneous, but predictably popular pretexts.
In short, any values that want to be the norm, libertarian, conservative, fundamentalists, socialism, Nazism, facism, democracy, whateverism, must benefit enough number of people for those value to have any effect. Got it? That’s why no countries are completely libertarian. That’s because under pure libertarians, only the top 10% sexiest best and brightest humans are benefited.
Well, actually straight forward capitalism also benefits everyone. However, people pick their values based on how those values serve their interests based on their perceived believe. Aspects like corruption, nepotism, dictatorships are things that most people don’t take into account when they demand socialists’ agenda because that’s out of the system for them. The same way, libertarians often underestimate the effects of coercion, frauds, envy, or pride in predicting humans’ interest.
If you want to promote libertarian freedom, for example, you will need to show, possibly by moderating your value, so that more people are benefited by your values. That’ll make the deal sweeter for others and hence others will more likely to support your values. In which case, the regular bigger bangs per bucks apply. The needy, being poor, is the cheapest to appease.
The liberal, for example, support a libertarian value of free sex but also support welfare, gay’s right, minorities’ interests, etc. to make the deal sweeter for more people. The conservative supports a libertarian value of free trades but also demand more prosecution against free sex to ration females to less desirable males. Hence they make the deal sweeter for un-sexy people.
Even a dictator can be wildly supported
because he serves the interests of many. Hitler satisfied the Germans’ need for
prejudice against envied minority. While corrupt, many political leaders in
In a sense, it’s not Hitler’s fault that the Jews are killed. We act as most supporters of Nazis are innocent people “tricked” by Hitler. The truth is that those people have intensive to believe lies Hitler made. Those people deliberately biased their opinion to believe evidences supporting their prejudice. In other world, they were guilty of subjectivity. Hence, it’s mainly their fault.
Notice, that it’s the sort of fault made by virtually all of us too, including me when I was young.
This e-book is meant to explain the reality
and humans’ nature the way it is. The truth is we’re not purely selfish. We’re
also hypocritical xenophobic mischievous arrogant
In particular, I realize that we don’t and will never live in a perfect world. We’ll never be purely free in a libertarian sense. But at the least, we can learn to figure out which freedoms are worth fighting for, and which freedoms are too expensive to ask for. Vehemently try to promote some freedom will cost us allies that’ll yield even less freedom and lower overall meritocracy and productivity. To the commies I’ll say that there is no such thing and there will never be classless societies. However, we can greatly influence that people attain their hierarchy through serving productively rather than forcing violently.
In fact, the main benefits of capitalism,
excluding anti trust laws and Federal Reserve, whose natures are still debatable,
comes from capitalistic effort, partially successfully, to do just that.
Unfortunately, capitalism works only when we’re purely selfish, and only when
all interactions between humans are magically consensual. While the former is
close to reality and the latter can be worked out quite close, there is always,
at least for now, enough
As a jury of any opinion, it’s our responsibility to sufficiently check the facts before casting verdicts.
Our cultures encourage us to use lack of knowledge and deliberation as an excuse to make the wrong choices. While it partially works in court, it doesn’t work in the business world. In business world, we’ll often face the consequences for all of our choices, whether it is knowledgeable or not, whether it is deliberate or not. Life is mostly business. Hence, it is our best interest to responsibly and deliberately seek knowledge that helps us to choose better.
In fact, we’ll face the consequences of our circumstances even when we don’t have any choice at all. I can’t tell whether those who live under evil dictators deserve their suffering. I can tell you they do suffer. Hence it is our best interest to responsibly try to recognize all the better choices we have.
Now, what are the facts? What arrangements are better based on those facts?
A Simple Boring Analogy
Our beliefs are greatly affected by our point of view. We are all partially correct on how the world actual works. Our accuracy increases on aspects of the world seen from our point of view. However, we often fail to acknowledge that other people can often be more correct on area seen from their point of view. This causes a lot of costly misunderstanding. Fixing this misunderstanding can often lead to mutual profit between both sides.
There is a story about a God that walked the earth. The God wore a hat with 2 colors. One side of the hat was red, the other side was blue. He walked in a road that split 2 villages. The worshippers in those 2 villages then have different opinions on the color of God’s hat. So they, the blue states and the red states killed each other.
What happened?
Why 2 people have two different opinions? Were they liars? Were they prejudiced? In most similar cases, that’s a huge factor. However, in many cases, including this one, they’re both correct within their point of view. Each side looks from their point of view, and generalize based on what they saw to shape their map of the world. Based on the data they received, their generalization was reasonable, though wrong.
Of course, the 2 villages were not completely innocent. Their first mistake was they generalized, which is a common mistake. You’re not supposed to touch every stove to know that all burning stoves are hot. However, it’s a mistake in a sense that it’s not perfectly accurate.
Their second mistake was they failed to see the other points of view. This is also common. If you’re a businessman why should you know what an electrical engineer see? The model that the sun circles the earth was fine in the middle age. We all see what we usually need to see. Still things that you fail to see might be crucial for your interest too. Often things we like to ignore due to our prejudice are very important. In most cases, however, we’ll do fine in areas of the world seen from our point view.
Their final mistake as that, of course, they’re so violent that they’d kill each other over a different opinion. This was the most fatal mistakes of all. And yet those are often done by many people, when they’re so sure they’re correct.
Real World Application of Differing Point of Views
When I was a teenage I was so against communism that I think
it’s fine to kill commies. After all the commies that die under Pinochet are
less than the number of scholars and businessmen that die under Mao Tze Tung or Stalin. I thought commies
are so evil. History shows that killing commies work. Look at
However, as time goes by, I start seeing things that the commies are not entirely wrong. At least many of them are not as damaging as I thought. Of course, like the red and blue states, their generalization is wrong, but the part that they see from their point of view is partially correct. Not only that, there are many more humane, fair, and consistent ways to deal with them. Killing them, is of course, a really bad idea
You know what’s better? Feed the poor, shelter them, and give them some cash in exchange of stuffs most of them don’t really mind doing. I’ll show that it’ll be good for the rich too.
But first of all, why communists and capitalists see the world differently? Are they prejudiced? Are they liars? Of course! All of us have intensive to entertain beliefs that serve our interest. But what’s the reality?
What happen? Let’s examine one by one how the
Who Are Privileged?
When I was young, I asked my mother, “How could this be?”
The mountain is closer to the sun, yet it’s colder than the sea shore. I forgot
her answer. Now, I know why though. While the mountain is closer to the sun,
the
The same way, many would ask their mom, “Which one is more
parasitic, the middle mediocre class or the welfare parasites?” Because the
middle class are more similar to the capitalists, we would think that the
welfare parasites are the parasites. The truth is only top 2 % of American
population are productive. Moreover, the
Then, other factors, which I didn’t take into account, show up. Both the middle class and the welfare parasites receive huge benefit beyond what the free fair market would give from the superior super rich smart humans. However, most population stores, reflects, and re-emits that productivity. The closer a person toward mediocrity, the more people that is similar to him. Democracy rewards similes. In Math term, your voting power under democracy country is proportional with the square root of those who are similar to you. The more powerful people extract more unfair money from the pie. So the middle class is more parasitic.
That’s why I support straight forward cash welfare. If we need to appease one or the other, of course we should appease those who are cheaper to appease.
Think it this way. Both socialists and capitalists, the poor and the rich, think that the other sides are privileged. What is privilege? Privilege is when a person gets more than what he productively deserved. That is, when a person gets more than what the fair market value for his service is. Privileges always exist and some form of it cannot be gotten rid of unprofitably.
How can a person be privileged?
There are two main ways to earn money. First is through productivity, the latter is by robbing it from others. Other ways, like sneakily steal will work too. However, for consistent income, some real bargaining position is needed.
How does someone rob you? Well he can do that when he is stronger than you right? This can happen either militaristically or politically. The former is when someone has a gun on your head, the other when many can vote against you. Under democracy, your vote power, measured by the probability that your vote will switch the president is proportional with the square root of those who are similar with you. Email me for the Math.
So who are the ruling class in democracy country? Guess what? The middle class. That means for most controversial issue, a politician is not going to pick an extreme position. They’re only going to pick a position that enables them to attract enough middle class votes. The controversial stands are the stands that matter.
A politician, for example, is unlikely to demand 0% tax.
Only the super productive would love it. He also wouldn’t demand 90% tax.
They’ll pick a tax rate that will exactly divide the people into roughly half.
Too much to the left or too much to the right and they’ll start losing votes.
Then politicians will start
Privilege is a measure of deviation from meritocracy.
Privilege is proportional with relative military and political power. Wealth
can be infinitely produced by humans’ hand. Under capitalism wealth tend be
divided meritoriously through (marginal) productivity in ways that properly
align selfish interest to what maximize productivity as a whole. How much
wealth
The bigger the government, the bigger the privilege effect. The bigger the privilege, the more intensive people have to earn privilege rather than being productive. Legend has it that Lü Buwei, the possible real father of Chinese’s’ first emperor, asked his dad, “How much profit can I gain when I farm and the harvest is good?” His father said, “Ten times the farm's worth. (land price tend to be quite low on 200BC)” Buwei then asked, “What about if I sell pearls?” “A hundred. (there sure are lots of market friction on 200BC)” “What about helping a king ascend to the throne, and taking control of a country's affairs?" Buwei asked again. His father smiled. “A thousand, even ten thousand. It can't be calculated.”
For thousands of thousands of years, humans follow the path of Lu Buwei, killing and tricking each other to get privilege. Lu Buwei himself is rumored to thank heaven for having a son smart enough to kill him for political advantage. That’s the kind of great influential people before capitalism.
All this got greatly reduced when Capitalism stopped that cold by properly aligning humans’ interest to productivity. Since then humans start choosing to be productive.
Though capitalism is good, nothing under heaven, not even capitalism, perfectly aligns selfish interest to productivity. Why in the earth a starving unemployed peasants would say, “I starve, but capitalism is fair, so I am going to defend it.” Humans’ basic preferences and natures lead to gene pool survival. That includes avoidance of starvation. The sort of humans that are around nowadays, under that condition, will simply join force with envy people killing capitalists. I’ll explain why people are envy latter.
Too much insistent on pure capitalism can incites huge
opposition. When opposition wins small, we got US with high income tax rate,
governments’ regulated health care, formal education, immigration laws, job creations,
subsidy, and market
Some wealth, like natural resources can’t be traced to
productivity. Moreover, natural resources tend to be
Privileges are still important and in many areas, including wealth creation, people still seek it. Hence governments tend to grow bigger, whichever the ruling class is. The middle class is the ruling class and hence the privileged class in democratic country.
For the poor, the middle class are the rich. So of course the poor say that the rich are privileged. Of course the poor keep complaining that they don’t have enough good paying jobs, which are actually implicit welfare. The poor then generalize that as some people get richer, it must be because of even more privilege.
For the rich, the middle class are poor. So of course the rich think the poor are privileged. The rich then generalize that the poorer the people, the more privilege he got. So you see how both are correct from their point of view?
Think it this way, let’s compute how much a person earn through free market system and compared that with what he actually get.
Welfare recipients produce nothing but get $5000/year in a developed country. Ouch ouch… Wait a minute. They don’t get that much… Let’s compute. Their standard of living worth only at most $1000/year. So where do the $4000/year go? Higher cost of living in a developed country enforced by restrictions of trade. When a worker gets paid $5/hour to do a menial job that can be done by an immigrant for $.50 cents an hour, that’s $4.5 bucks implicit welfare/hour for workers.
Some Math and pencil pushing can show that, under any well behaved utility function with diminishing marginal utility, that $4.5 bucks implicit welfare must have cost the rich way more than $4.5. That’s $4.5 per hour times 250 days times 8 hours, that’s a whopping $9,000/year costing the productive probably around $20,000/year.
A minimum wage workers cost 20 times implicit welfare compared to welfare recipients. In developed country, jobs are simply implicit welfare. Also those earning $30/hour would have earned only $5/hour without job protection. That’s $50,000.00 of implicit welfare, probably costing the truly productive by some $200,000/year in lost of potential profits.
So what happen?
In the beginning government created welfare. It’s a small humane program. At least, that’s what it was meaned to be. Is should have been something small just in case somebody slips through the crack.
The thing is many people are easily satisfied and not greedy. Once they know that they’ll get fed without working, they don’t work.
So to motivate people to work, governments artificially increase wage. Now, a worker doing stuff that can be done by a machine or immigrant for $.5/hour needs to be done by a $5/hour worker due to protection and minimum wage. Many workers simply become unemployed because of these schemes.
So people are not motivated to do stuffs that do worth $5/hour. Governments then cast the same spell making jobs that worth $5/hour to get paid $10/hour. For the same reason, governments also arrange that those doing jobs worth $10/hour get paid $20/hour.
Finally the pyramid welfare schemes burst. It’s no longer clear who gets and who pays. The middle class gets the most, but pay the most.
Eventually, government rather than the market, indirectly decides who gets what. The one that have good relationship to power tend to get rather than pay. So money that could have been used to pay workers or buy productive capitals is then spent for political donations. Smart people don’t work in private sectors because political party can pay more. Governments get bigger.
Each of those privileges will have to be paid of somehow, either by businessmen that’ll go bankrupt, consumers that have to pay higher living costs due to tariff, or people who lost jobs because capital owners simply move their capital overseas.
Tariffs and job protection is in a sense implicit welfare because it profits some people and hurt the others in ways that deviates from the meritocracy. Other countries are made worse off too, and they’ll retaliate with their own protection scheme. Even worse, what did Japan and German do when they can’t get natural resources through trade in 1940s? How much does that implicit welfare cost again?
So, if we draw a graph of difference between earning and what they would have earned under a libertarian regime, we see that the poor got a little privilege, the middle class get lots of privilege, and the rich pay for all those privilege. Top 2% of the most talented and productive workers, support the rest of the population. Latter, I’ll show that libertarians are not exactly an optimum solution.
The top 2% of the most productive workers are not stupid. They simply move their capital overseas to avoid prosecution. The poor and middle class simply rob whichever left by frivolous lawsuits, and more income tax to get more. Eventually, huge portion of tax are paid again, by guess who? The middle class.
This implicit welfare doesn’t simply take money from the
rich and give it to the poor. Direct cash welfare programs are small changes.
The biggest issue is that it
Of course, all those implicit welfare is so inefficient that
it’ll probably cost $5 from the rich for every $1 the recipient benefits. So
there is huge money being lost to the thin air. While wealth re
While welfare programs seem to start all this domino effect, the welfare it self is small. Nevertheless, the rich keep bitching against explicit welfare programs that cost far less because of the domino effect. However, there is no guarantee that fighting welfare program will actually make the situation better.
Welfare itself is cheap. What about if we have way bigger problems than that? Then by fighting against welfare, we’ll concentrate our fire power on small issues.
Also we’ll make many very determined enemies. After all, many people will starve without welfare. What do Sun Tzu says about fighting cornered enemies? Check here: http://www.sonshi.com/sun7.html. Moreover, humanitarians support that. The envy will use starving people as justification to rob way more money than the cost of welfare. Capitalism will have too many enemies if we fight welfare. Perhaps there is a better way.
One alternative is to concentrate our bitching energy to
those greater evil like market
However, once people have enough money to fulfill all their
need, most do not have enough intensive to work anymore. All those market
By the way, what about if humans are more greedy. Then people would still have a very strong intensive to work even though they can eat without working. But why most people are not greedy enough anyway?
Let’s just keep this issue in mind and see what other reasons people have to oppose free trade capitalism. Maybe we’ll see some good solutions.
Prejudices
The needy are actually the least harmful enemy of freedom. There are far greater problems that motivate people to oppose freedom. Perhaps, we should examine those ones first.
Our opinions are often based on bullshits and pretexts. Many acts that hurt the rich are done under the pretext of helping the poor. The truth is, only politicians and the middle class that are mainly helped by those acts. Worst of all, almost nobody is actually profited.
It’s just that envy people want that to hurt the rich. So the poor think they don’t have enough chance, which is true. The rich, that have been sucked dry for the sake of the poor, keep wondering what the fuck is the poor bitching about.
Let’s see didn’t government create jobs for the middle class (=poor for the rich). Didn’t government give free education for the middle class? Didn’t government protect workers from foreign competition for the middle class? Didn’t government provide tariff and quota to protect the job of the middle class and ensure enough bribe for politicians? So why do the poor keep bitching? Because the poor is not the middle class.
So great, let the rich and the poor join hand screw the middle class. No…. We’ll see latter that the middle class are not only the most privileged but they are also the most constrained too. Most middle class live a “standard” live. They go to school. They get married. Produce 2.5 kids. Then they die. Look like there must have been many governments’ constraints to ensure that it’s the most popular path. The bigger the privilege, the more bargaining position governments have to enforce his term for that privilege.
Obviously many middle class would rather have freedom than their privilege. Why? Well, some want to evolve up into a businessman. I know. I was a middle class too that made that transition. I’ll never go back. Some, if they’re going to cost the productive $5,000 per year anyway, would rather use that $5,000/year to enjoy life in some low costs of living place in a tropical island.
Yet they can’t. Why? Because every privilege, when handled by the politicians, will always come with some form of constraints that will reduce the value of the privilege.
Think it this way, say God give money to government. Often it’s not God, but natural oil supply, some money tree, or tax whatever. Say governments have $5,000.00 to be given to a specific recipient. One thing government can do is to give $5,000 cash.
If governments do that, then the recipient will control the money. If the recipient is in control of the money, the recipient will have choices to help himself. Then problem solved. Then there goes justification to get more money from the people. So government officials will run out of job.
So what do governments do? They decide how the money is spent. Governments don’t give $5,000 cash. Governments give $5,000 in the form of free public school. Now would you rather get $5,000 cash or would you rather have an option that costs $5,000. Of course $5,000 cash worth $5,000. How much a public school that costs $5,000/year worth to you?
How much you’re willing to pay for such schools? It varies from persons to persons. Let’s see, do you like to memorize dates and names in schools? Would you rather learn what everyone else learn or would you rather specialize on your specific talent? Do you prefer taking risk in the stock market than risking your life bullied or getting shot in public school? Do you have a special talent where you’re very good at some courses and bad at the others? If you’re in any of that category, you probably won’t value governments’ canned solution more than $1,000. You see, the welfare efficiency is just 20%. The other $4,000 is gone with the wind. Thanks to governments’ magical skills at running our life.
However, that $1,000 is still greater than 0. Hence you go to public school anyway. The rich will think that they are being sucked by $5,000 (they are!) because of the poor. The truth is the poor only receive $1,000 worth of benefit. If you’re a middle class, you probably pay $5,000 in tax to get that $1,000 worth of benefit.
You see why the different points of view?
For some, governments’ restrictions are so much that $5,000 package worth less than $0. Those people then choose to go to private school, or start a business straight. Many of them, without governments’ help become very rich despite obviously paying up for privileges they never enjoy. In my countries, many very rich businessmen don’t graduate from elementary school. When they’re rich, of course they’re mad when governments want to take their money for the poor. They think it’s the poor that have been sucking their money all this time and want more. The truth is most of the money just evaporate.
The needy need food. However, evil in the name of truth has no end of destruction. Why such evil exist? Why people create and embrace it?
Envy, the Main Cause of Prejudice
Many laws that annoy the rich do not help the poor. Those laws are just there out of envy. The lost of happiness and money from the rich due to those laws simply evaporate at high degree.
The poor don’t benefit from it and think the solution is to get more money from the rich. The rich think the poor has taken so much. The truth is, most money the rich lost or prevented from earning are simply money gone due to lack of cooperation and understanding between the poor and the rich. Those misunderstanding are caused by prejudices, which are motivated by envy.
What is envy? Say an average man want to attract a beautiful woman. He signaled, indirectly, “Mate with me! I have a high quality gene and enough money to support our offspring. You can instinctively pattern recognize that from the cost of our dinner and the brand of my car.”
The woman will also ask, in a highly encrypted language, “If you have the best genes, why you’re not as rich as that bank robbers, Saddam, Suharto, or dictators?” Of which the man will say, indirectly, “Well, their genes are not better than mine. You see, I am not genetically inferior. I am morally superior. I don’t rob people. I don’t do evil things.”
Then the woman will simply ask, “What about Bill Gates? He makes money honestly through capitalism, he’s rich too. What about Ricky Martin? Not only he’s rich, he can also attract many females proofing his genetic quality.”
What? Are you surprised that women want the best genes? They don’t teach you this in woman study class? Well, now you sort of know.
Go to any country with significant
If you want to be really convinced, try
Figure 1: The red queen by Matt Ridley teaches how our preferences evolve.
If you are so curious you want to understand in-depth more of “What sexy means” or what humans’ typical sexual desires, like I did, try all these.
Figure 2: A bunch of other books explaining how humans’ sexual selection works.
Those books are very polite and mainstream so not to offend some whims that read it. If you want an outspoken, uncensored, blunt summary of all those books and many more from a businessman point of view, try the one I wrote in here.
By the way, women want the best genes. What do males want? As many pretty females as possible. So if sex is deregulated, women will easily get what they want.
Superiority is always mainly subjective. It depends on whichever beliefs are prevailing at that time. Women pick the best genes based on the prevailing beliefs. We all acts based on our subjective beliefs rather than on reality.
What would the man say? What would you say if you’re the
man? What sort of preferences will get the man to get the girl and stay in the
gene pool? C’mon… He would say, “Wealth is evil. Capitalism is evil. Mating
with many women is immoral. Genetic advantage is unfair or doesn’t exist.”
Right? He would work day and night to ensure that such beliefs are the one
wildly believed by the society. They’ll come up with many excuses to silence
any
Males aim for large quantity of females. Females want the best genes and money. Females also use money heavily to judge males’ attractiveness, possibly even more than males use beauty.
Once a society is prosper enough that they can afford food, the existence of the best and brightest will simply reduce their gene pool survival because the best and brightest are simply tough competitors. So naturally, many people, especially the affluent, powerful and privileged middle class, would want to kill those they feel superior to them. “Thieves yell Thief.” The inferior cries that the superior is inferior. The parasites argue that the productive people are parasitic.
Figure 3: Racists killing a Jewish businessman
Don’t believe me? Ever wonder why the minority groups that are accused of being parasitic and inferior are often the most productive and in a sense, superior? No Nazis would ever say “We got to kill the Jews, we can’t possibly compete with Jewish cock.”
Doing so will entertain the beliefs that they are inferior relative to the Jews. So they’ll come up with bullshits after bullshits, from the east to the west, from the crooked nose, to the Aryan race theory, from evolution to the bible, from communism to capitalism, to somehow argue that the Jews are inferior and should be eliminated.
The Jews are not the only one. To a much lesser extend, the
Chinese in
Preferences to reduce gene pool survival of the best and brightest are called envy. Clear? When I was young, I didn’t even think that such preferences exist strongly. It doesn’t show up in my micro economy class one thing for sure. It doesn’t show up in my feeling. When I see Bill Gates gets rich, I simply say, “I have to exceed him,” not that “Bill is evil.”
So I don’t understand envy, till I know evolution theory. It’ll be too long to explain, you can always check http://genepoolsurvivalguide.com/genetips.htm for more info.
All right, let’s move on.
Figure 4: Starvie, a needy kid wanting food
If the needy want food, they’ll say, “I want food. Please feed me.”
If you give the needy food, who knows latter he’ll latter help you for something useful for you. In fact, I’ve figured out a way how the needy can be very useful for the productive and hence, worthy to get way more than just food.
What about, protecting the productive from envy people? This can be done either by being your personal guard or by voting. That would be a start. How much money does that worth? What about giving a portion of that money for their food, shelter, and initial capitals? Will that be a gain? Can that be worked out?
I have some ideas. For now, look at Starvie, our little starving kid above in Figure 4. Their kinds can be our gate to a much more prosperous capitalistic libertarian society.
Ancient Chinese saying says, “Even demons will do good deeds when we give them money.” The needy are obviously better than demons. The envy people are obviously worse.
It is very important not to ever mislabel pictures of envy with pictures of needy. Otherwise people will get really confused. Many pictures the politicians show you are clearly mislabeled.
In ancient time, during Suharto era, governments’ involvement in economy through favoritism is huge. Suharto’s cronies get huge benefits. When benefits are decided by governments’ official, intensives among businessmen are to please officials, not to be more productive. The result is of course, poverty.
Many of course opposed that, especially the poor. Then the cronies
simply said that the protestors are envy, hence trying to
Now during the end of Suharto’s era, many native Indonesian chanted, “Kill Chinese! Kill Chinese!” Some openly complained that they have a hard time getting Chinese women.
They went on burning Chinese shops, buildings, etc. Many also raped Chinese women and force Chinese to flee, with their capital, overseas. Racist politicians said that those looters are “needy.” Well, not needy for food that’s one thing for sure.
Now some people are both needy and envy. Doesn’t matter. Just like they are good, bad, reasonable, unreasonable, fair, unfair, and catastrophic people in all races, they are too various kind of genes in a human.
What’s important is that we recognize which acts are motivated by cheap basic needs and which acts are catastrophically envy motivated. Important for what? Important to know which one is the bigger evil. That way we’ll know which motivations and acts we shouldn’t appease.
Knowing which one is more costly will enable us decide which
one we should
The envy wants you to lose. The very thing envy people want is your failure. The only way to appease the envy is to hurt your self, and even after that, the envy will still hate you for your success potential. The hatred of the envy goes straight to your genes.
So what would the envy say? Would the envy say, “Please fail so I can boost my ego and illusion of capability?” Doing so will defeat the point of being envy. Because there is no way envy people can be appeased cheaply and also because they want to maintain an unrealistic prejudice, envy almost always manifest into lies and prejudices. And that’s what makes envy really dangerous.
I’ll give an example. Why do everyone moves at the same speed in school?
If there is no speed limit in students’ progress, then fast learners, like I am, can just spend days rather than years to learn Math or programming, and get a job or start a business earlier, and then get rich earlier. I mean I did get rich, but it could have been much faster.
The envy will come up with 1001 reasons why you shouldn’t
move so fast. Like religious doctrines, their lies and prejudices tend to use
magical words and phrases that scientists cannot easily
Here are a few justifications to ensure everyone moves at
the same speed that I’ve heard. Some says that children need to grow
spiritually. How in the earth you
Then formal education is necessary to turn students into a whole human being. Whoa… I am lost here. So most humans are not a whole human being or what? You see why many high schools drop out often become rich or studs while the educated remain poor? The educated got his brain so whacked with all this non sense they can’t even do things a normal humans can..
There is a saying that the most perfect humans are Tao and the most perfect Tao are humans. We’re quite good the way we are. I am not going to go into there here.
Then students need to learn how to work hard. However, the market needs productivity, not work. If students don’t spend time in school, they’ll go drink beer. What about if the students use their extra time to move faster, and earn more money or start a business.
Then, the envy will say that there are so many courses students need to take to be a successful member of society. They’ll argue that all things you are told to learn in school are there because they are useful for you.
When I was young, I take a course in typing and book
keeping. I still remember the difficult day where I have to memorize the steps
of putting papers into a typewriter. Of course, I know how to do it. But do you
know that there are actually 7
Let’s see. The first step is to look at the paper. Second step is to ensure that the paper is blank. Third step is to put it into the damn type writer I guess. I forget what the other 4 steps are.
Remembering each and every step was of course essential. That’s because in the exam, the womyn teacher would ask something like, “What’s the 4th step in putting paper to a typewriter?” I wonder if one day I could test her with, “What’s the 97th step of making money in internet?”
Religious study teachers would come to the class, gave a book to a student, tell the student to jot down the content of the book in the black board, got the rest of us to jot down the black board. Then, on the exam, we simply had to memorize the black board. I was punished of writing Psalm 23rd, 40 times because I forgot to bring my note book once.
Then there was this language teacher. Of course I could speak well in my native language, which was not English by the way. So sorry if this e-book needs a lot of correction. Obviously I can speak and communicate well in my native language. I really can.
Then, the language teacher will ask, “What are the 5 books (an author’s name) wrote” in the exam. If latter, I asked some counselor, why in the earth I had to learn my own native language, the counselor would innocently say, “So you can communicate with others.”
All the adults simply told me that the only reason why a course is taught in school is for the sole purpose that it serves my own good. They’d innocently say that the only reason why they taught me that is because all those are extremely important and necessary if I want to be successful.
Wow, what about if you go to your boss, which is of course more successful than you, unless you’re a businessman like me. You can ask, “Boss, I got some questions. What is our 17th president and on what date did he die? What’s the 3rd city that Paul visited on his 2nd trip? What’s the 5th character in Shakespeare’s third book?”
If the boss doesn’t know, tell him or her, “You don’t deserve to be a boss. All those things are necessary to be successful according to my wise teachers. In fact, because you don’t even know that, I don’t think you’re able to communicate in English at all. How could you, don’t even know that? You won’t be successful being anyone, especially a boss.”
Now, before you do it and get fired for insanity, or insanely stupid, I’ll tell you something. We capitalists know a very important technique to improve our wealth. It’s called positive thinking. Usually, before evidences show that it can be done, we believe first that it is doable. Then the way often show up by it self. It’s one of the most important attitudes for business. Believe that you can be rich. Believe that you can change the world to the better. The how will come latter.
Of course, some common senses are still required to apply that principle successfully. That’s beyond this e-book.
Now, when your teacher told you that bullshits they taught you is “necessary” for you, your teacher teach you negative thinking. Your teacher taught you to err heavily that you cannot in an area that you obviously can. Your teachers effectively taught you that unless you are smart enough to memorize all those garbage you’ll become nobody.
Imagine a kid being told hundreds of times for 18 years that they wouldn’t be successful unless they are able to learn really difficult stuffs that are actually useless. Some of the kids will fail to learn the difficult stuffs believing they won’t be successful. Some kids will learn the difficult stuff and then bitch that the world is unfair when they don’t have enough job for the garbage they learn.
Some will say that this is simply a “defect” of the system.
It’s not true. But even if it is, a big if, then governments’ role in deciding what
you should learn is at best like an HIV virus. HIV does not cause any
We too have an antibody against extreme repeated stupidity. That antibody is called choice. When my teacher told me to memorize useless dates, and names I can simply shrug that out as too stupid and move on learning Math, business, or joining MLM. Yet, most students in my situation simply eat up all governments’ bullshit, with memorizing for full digestation effect.
I ate lots of bullshits too in formal education, till one brave day, I bravely decided to just throw it all up and use my own common sense to see reality. That brave day on 2000 was why I am a successful businessmen rather than a homeless programmer. Does anyone want to be free have to feel my pain first?
I’ll give you another sample how having a choice can easily
save people from really awful situations. A woman that got beaten up or
Without governments’ regulations interfering with our free will, these entire sad situations can be easily shrugged of or avoided. Yet, somehow, many humans face those horrible fates due to lack of choice as an antibody against bad situation. Being under the leash of governments’ nurturance is like getting HIV isn’t it?
We would all have done much better if only we had choices. Guess what buddy, we do!
Even when someone put a gun in our head, we still have a choice. I can name several. Give the money. Fight back and die martyr. Run… Unconsensual forces make even our best choices bad, but that’s still choice. Failure to recognize those choices can lead to even worse fate. That’s something you wouldn’t want to do, unless you think Jewish’ genocide is no big deal.
I could have quit school earlier ignoring governments’ mandate. The woman can break anti prostitution laws and become mistresses anyway risking getting caught. Those are choices. The same way, we can do something in our desperate attempt for freedom. If one of the least bad strategy might include feeding little Starvie, we might as well do it.
Of course, governments’ roles can be even worse than HIV.
HIV just weakens the antibody. Governments’ regulations weaken the antibody of
choice, and then is the
Moreover, there are varying opinions about HIV, which suggest that it may be less harmful than getting governments taking your choices. Some of which suggest that it’s actually much harmless that a scientist, Peter Duesberg want to get infected by HIV rather than having to face lots of censorship.
Oh by the way. I’d really like to mention that if you know
someone that you believe is going to die and go to hell anyway within weeks due
to AIDS, please check some cure
for AIDS
first.
Also, ponder what
if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong?You
can also check out http://www.whatisaids.com/
for more issues.
I’d like everyone to presume HIV is not cure able if he/she doesn’t have it. But if anyone got it, might as well think positive right? Never, ever accept a fatally negative opinion without heavy scrutinizing. Of course, what I told you never to do is the very exact thing that your teachers will tell you to.
Then what?
Then you’ve put huge reasonable doubts to their arguments. Obviously, at least some really successful people can be very successful without all those courses teachers say are necessary. Then what? Those who want to leash you won’t give up.
They’ll say, there isn’t enough job in the market. Now they
admit that it’s not for your own good, and that it’s really mean to slow you down,
but somehow for some form of greater public interest, which is even harder to
Well, there will always be job if governments don’t regulate it. When there are too many workers, the market price of workers will drop, those workers will start evolving into businessmen, creating job. The initial capital to start a business is much less than capital spent on formal education.
Then they just say you’re different and the system is designed for the majority. The number of Warcraft players are less than .02% of the world population, yet the market accommodate that.
What’s the reason? What’s the real reason? The real reason is so that those lazier or dumber than you don’t have their ego hurt due to your achievements.
When someone gets rich, the envy mediocre can say that the person is rich due to anything but choices and genetic quality. Maybe he has more start up capital.
In fact, that’s what Karl Marx is touting when in one hand he says to give workers the full fruit of the workers’ labor while on the other hand he encourage peasants to rob capital, which is often are savings from highly productive workers.
Now in school, when one student moves faster, it’s obvious that he doesn’t move faster because he has higher capital. Say a student has a special talent. Say he has a high IQ. One talented programmer worth 10 untalented programmers and can start making money 10 times earlier.
A program made by 1 programmer for 1 day can replace the jobs of many mediocre secretaries for years. Go to http://genepoolsurvivalguide.com/genetips.htm to get some of those programs for you, free. But math and programming talent are not the only intelligence, though they seem to correlate weakly with other intelligences too.
When a student moves faster than the rest, it’ll be pretty obvious that the students “win” not because of any privilege or higher start up capital on their sleeve, but simply because they have the right choices and the right genes. In other world, fair wealth.
Does that benefit the poor to limit students’ progress? No. But governments, influenced by the envy, arrange that all students move at the same speed nevertheless.
Subjective Nature of Superiority
I don’t know, and would rather pretend that I don’t know which intelligence, or talent, is the most important and which humans are superior. As I said, it’s always partially subjective. However, for scientific and political reason, if we want to improve prosperity, we’d rather entertain the beliefs that the greatest among us are those who serve the market the most. The market is the fairest judge on who contributes better service.
Societies often do the opposite. Wealth that is earned too fairly hurt the ego of the mediocre and hence politically incorrect. There is no way the less capable can save their face when you win fair and square. So when a person can earn more money due to superior choices, or talents, others will prevent that. In particular, they ensure that every body moves at the same speed at school.
Really. People do hate those who win fair and square. Thousands would march to defend the life of one serial killer from death penalty. Yet millions would silently cheer when bourgeois are slaughtered in many societies. Most capitalists don’t understand why. I also don’t till the day I understand evolution theory.
There is far more hostility against capitalists than dictators. Dictators, being stronger, is of course feared. However, long after a communist dictator die, people still respect him while despising the real hero, the capitalists. That’s because dictators know how to make others feel good about them self. Dictators, like Hitler, understand envy and know how to embrace it. Capitalists, most capitalists, don’t even know envy exist.
So many talented students, that’ll latter get rich, feel really angry with the poor because they think they’ve been slowed down for the sake of the poor. The truth is the poor get no benefit from the sacrifice of the talented. Again there goes another commies vs capitalists argument where both sides feel like they want to kill each other.
Scarcity within Potential Abundance
Other sample: Say you’re rich. Say you have a child that got
Leukemia and need a marrow transplant. Say your child has an
Figure 5: A kid needing an AB blood in
But then, you can’t just pay someone for the marrow. Because trading of humans’ organ is prohibited. That is a way to help the poor, says the proponent of the law. If humans organ trading is not prohibited, then only the rich can get organs donors. After all, organs are scarce right?
Many poor and middle class people believing this scarcity mentality then also support prohibition of organs trading.
You would be so enraged to the poor. Obviously… Now your child die due to laws protecting the poor you think. Voices come to your head, “Kill commies!… Kill commies!” Well, let’s see… Really? Is it really meant to help the poor? Do the poor really get helped? How rare organs are anyway? We should always be suspicious of laws protecting people from consensual offers.
Virtually all of the time, it doesn’t serve the interest of the person, doesn’t properly align individuals’ interest with productivity, nor it maximizes productivity as a whole. Yet many envy people would claim the laws do all three because they want to promote suffering.
There are 30 millions of humans that have an
How many of the 30 millions, do you think, are willing to give his marrow for say, $500? Plenty. Many poor people would love to make a living doing that. In fact, organs are often so abundant.
The truth is the real reason the law is there is not for the poor. Envy people want to get rid gene pool survival of the rich. They don’t like the idea that wealth, earned productively, can be very useful for something that matters a lot.
So they prohibit organ trading. So? Envy people simply declare that organ trading is “immoral” and prohibits that. So even with such 80000 to 1 supply to demand ratio, there is scarcity. That would be governments’ policy 101 for you.
Is this a coincidence? Every time I hear the word immoral is attributed to a specific act, I often found out that those acts are our key to be humane and yet fair.
We’re all going to die. Many of us will die with organs that could have been sold to someone else. Organs after organs are simply wasted because the rich cannot buy it from the poor. That’s what happens due to envy. The rich lost, the poor are not profited. It’s simply money lost.
Humans’ basic instincts are designed for gene pool survival. Many rich smart productive males will be glad to put their money to improve their gene pool survival. When the productive survive in the gene pool, the society will be benefited too, obviously, now that there are more people on the paying side than those on the receiving side of welfare.
But many acts where a person can reduce his quality of life in exchange of quantity of genetic copies, like hiring mistresses, paying for a priority seats in private healthcare system is prevented due to envy. Hence, the rich simply use their money for doodads like mansions, personal airplanes, which don’t make them too happy and much less useful for the poor.
Combination of envy motivated and highly inefficient implicit welfare happens again and again. A strain of welfare recipients do not just want welfare, they want to feel like they’re earning it. Those false beliefs simply cost capitalists way more money.
Because capitalism is abundant, basic necessities can be mass produced cheaply with robots. Yet, in a poor country, governments would burn cheap clothes and food under the pretext of indirectly protecting jobs, etc. The rich get hurt, the poor get hurt too. Now poor people in that country has to pay more money for their food and clothes. Only the politicians and bad businesses are profited, usually by bribes, as usual, in exchange of making the envy feels good.
Consensual Sex
More sample, sex laws. Once you’re rich what do you want to do? Evolution theory teaches us about humans’ typical nature.
If you’re a male, you’ll want to knock up as many hot smart pretty chickz as possible. That’s the whole point of getting rich. If you’re female you’ll want to aim for a male that’s even richer. If you’re a pretty smart female, you’ll want to aim for a rich male and get paid a lot for your sexual favor. And the rich don’t mind paying for sex.
As long as wealth results from productivity, it’ll give strong intensive to be rich. It’ll create the greed we need to stop welfare programs’ domino effect.
It’ll encourage the genes most suited for productivity to survive in the gene pool increasing our standard of living.
This would accomplish what the eugenic want to do without government’s intervention and far more accurately, as everything out of a market will. While authoritarian eugenic would often end up getting rid those who are superior, because envy people want to get rid tough competitors, free sex preserve the best genes like free trades encourage the best products.
Guess what? It’s prohibited. Again, some people simply say that’s its immoral. Ding dong…
If you’re rich, you’ll say, “Argh… What the fuck the poor want anyway? I can’t consensually pay females for money. So females have to choose males poorer than I am. Then I have to support the poor’s child.” The truth is, if you’re poor, you don’t think much about making a kid. You think about how to get rich. Kids, even sex, come latter.
I know, I was homeless in year 2000 when I accumulated capital for my business. That’s the moment that I decided that I have enough bullshit that I am just going to run my life the way that make sense for me. That was the decision I have never regretted.
Moreover, many poor people would love to have their daughter becoming a mistress for a rich male. Women want the rich. Moreover poor kids are not usually taken care of with the riches’ money. In poor country, the poor kids simply starve and malnourished. Again it’s not for the poor. Then for who?
Laws Regulating Consensual Sex
So why are there so many criminal codes against consensual sex? This is very interesting because the poor and the rich are not the only one fighting over regulation over consensual sex. The issue is better known as issues between males and females. Yet the sides are not really divided by sexes. Some males support sex regulation and want to protect females from consensual “exploitation.”
The other males believe that as long as it is consensual,
all transaction should be allowed. The females’ side is the same. Some are
radical feminists, some are individual feminists. The latter think that as long
as something is consensual, it should be allowed, while the former
Just like the poor vs the rich, both sides believe that the other sex is the one “privileged.” From their point of view, they’re both correct.
So what happen?
Most males believe that the women are privileged. To protect women, government prohibits males from hiring multiple mistresses. So males think that females are really privileged that governments protect females so much even when an act is consensual yet do nothing to protect his house from burglars.
During world war 2, hundreds of males are sacrificed just so that a general can make a more accurate calculation. When Titanic sink, the phrases, “Women and children first!” is heard. The Japanese are not condemned for killing many male soldiers. The Japanese are condemned for enslaving much less women as sex slaves. In facts, reports show that those women actually get paid a lot of money, suggesting that the women are actually self entrepreneurs rather than slave. Moreover, the Japanese are still condemned for having orgies with willing Chinese prostitutes.
It’s true. Males are so expendable in any society. Females are always protected more in any society but the males are more expendable. Now babes… you see why the males think the females are privileged?
However, when women are also protected from consensual offers, something doesn’t feel right. Doesn’t something look suspicious? After all, consent is the most important indicator of interest. It’s highly unlikely a person can be beneficially protected from his or her own consent, whether the person is male or female.
The fairy tales can go from the east to the far west.
Usually the justification will quote magical words that no scientists can
However, evolution theory also teaches us what’s really going on. If you recognize the pattern, all those laws that supposedly “protect” females from consensual offers from males are actually there to ration females to less desirable males.
I’ll explain it briefly. See, women want the best seller rich smart studs. So, there is monogamy. Then women simply demand males’ money outside marriage. So there are anti prostitution laws. Then women work for money too so she can get the best genes. Then some people would say that women shouldn’t work. Taliban prohibits women from working. Finally, child support laws are designed so that a man’s child support is set up proportional to the man’s wealth. Child support, like tax, is the only loan enforced by debtor jail. The only loans that are enforced by debtor jails are loan due to financial productivity.
I mean, c’mon. Don’t you get suspicious? There are far more pressure for women to get married than pressures for women to show up in porn. Anyone watching Zenra, or Japanese’s porn, would obviously see that those women are very happy in porn industry. They must be happier there than working from 9 to 5 like the males do.
Women having sex with a man often makes the other men angry and cries rape, whether it’s consensual or not.
A Japanese soldier got paid 150 yen per year to risk their life during World War 2 fighting Americans. Their “sex slave” comfort women got paid 1000 yen/month, which is twice a general’s salary. Check this out http://www.jiyuu-shikan.org/e/db2c.html. Of course, with that kind of salary, we can only wonder if it’s really un-consensual.
Prostitution is one of the few occupations where women traditionally out earn men. It may not be a good job, but obviously way better than risking your life fighting American. Wait a minute. What do I mean by it’s not a good job to give sexual favor? Most males would love to pay to get that kind of job.
I really have a hard time understanding women that demand abolition of prostitution and a better chance to serve in the army. The only way that’ll ever make any sense to me is if serving in the army means serving the army. Women, though typically, not as much as males, aim for quantity too.
As a Chinese, I am not in business of defending the Japanese cause. However, the more I see history, the more I concluded that, the other side, the one that’s winning, is far from saints either. Tens of thousands of Indonesians are massacred by the Dutch to prevent some consensual spice trading. Thousands of Chinese are massacred by the Dutch to get rid of Chinese competitors.
Worst of all, millions of Chinese are killed by, guess who, the Chinese. Paying too much attention toward Japanese’s atrocities is like condemning others for challenging our own expertise.
Japanese did rape many women in
But that’s unfair. Many Chinese female infants are slaughtered because the Chinese prefer a male child. There is 1.1 male for every .9 female among the Chinese because the Chinese are killing Chinese females. Here we are blaming the Japanese for consensually paying women we’re throwing away.
Despite their tentacles, cool devices, house keeping hamsters, and images of demon beast invasion, the Japs treat women the best by giving their women freedom to make a lot of money performing what women do best: porn.
If the Chinese men don’t like it, then we should just make more money than the Japanese and hire Japanese chickz to suck our cocks. If we can’t do that fast enough, there are always Balkan, Russian, Arab, and African women that need to be “saved” from poverty and in-consensual oppressions, such as laws against consensual acts. That’s the fair way to get women. We do that, and soon, everyone will be Chinese again. This time literally.
Check out http://www.zetetics.com/mac/xxx/ for a more authoritative analysis. Notice that she’s more ideological rather than scientific, and hence I think I am still more credible. Compared the content there with this http://cocksofthealphamales.com/victimless.htm.
Linking a Man’s Reproduction Cost to a Man’s Wealth
Another strategy parasitic envy vermins do to reduce gene pool survival of the financially productive is to make the high income pays more for reproduction.
Child support laws, for example, require higher income males paying more money. These reduce rich males’ availability to females and therefore hurt females.
Now, do sons of Donald Trump require more money to be financially independent than the son of a welfare recipients? Evolution theory teaches that sons of Donald Trump would actually need less money to be financially independent due to their inherited talent. So why do the laws require richer males to pay bigger child support to his child?
The richer the male, the less child support is needed to
help the child to become financially independent. That’s because the child
already inherits money making talent to his offspring. Of course, richer males
tend to voluntarily pay more child support due to their genetic intensive.
However, requiring bigger child support from richer male to protect a child’s
right is a
It’s like requiring some black/green/purple (which ever typically oppressed skin color) people to pay more for the same car, for example. Yes, rich males are able, and often willing to spend more money to each of his child. However, many of them prefer to simply make more child rather than paying for more money per child.
Richer males are also able to pay more for each car they have. We simply allow them to buy more cars, and more houses, resulting in underused inventory. Why we prevent them from making more kids?
Children of rich males do not have a right of bigger child support, unless their parents think they do. How’s that for the libertarian solution of equality?
The true purpose of that
Alimony and palimony are also set proportional to a man’s wealth. Are rich males less attractive so that they have to pay more to persuade women to mate with them? The truth is the opposite. The market would confirm this that women are willing to have sex with less money to rich males. In fact, women are willing to have sex for free with really rich males. Is it to the women’s best interest to offer her sexual service at higher price to richer males? No.
The Great Lost Due to Envy
Productivity is partly talent. If guys like Bill Gates, Donald Trump, etc. make lots and lots of kids, then there’ll be plenty of productivity. When females can choose to share richer males rather than the poorer ones, the poor will make fewer kids. There will be fewer cases about starving kids with 9 siblings in a poor male. With huge ratio between the rich and the poor, it’ll be very easy to help the poor. Sex laws are the biggest welfare program there is.
The females think the males are in power (it’s true). That’s because they’re unhappy getting stuck with a less desirable male within marriage. I know many females that are unhappy in their marriage but have a hard time to get out due to all these laws that are supposedly protect them.
Those females want to be free and mate with Ricky Martin, but society prevents that. So it’s reasonable then that many women think that the males are oppressing them. They’re right. The question is which males? Not the alpha males that’s one thing for sure.
If you want to see whether females are benefited or not by sex laws against consensual sex, let’s consider the following. If sex is deregulated, womyn all over the world will have a huge power to decide which males will survive in the gene pool.
Any males that want to survive in the gene pool will have to offer a lot of money and other benefits to at least one woman. That means all kids will have a rich mom. Most kids will also have rich smart studs as dad. Women market value will go up, and so will humans genetic quality.
Women that support sex laws simply support the interest of males that in-consensually knock chicks up through oppressions. Such women are usually unsexy, lesbian, and dumb.
The real issue with consensual sex is not the rich vs the poor, or males vs females, or religion vs the immoral. The real issue is between the sexy vs un-sexy. Under free sex, the market decides what each will get. Just like regular financial market, free sex market gives huge full benefit to those more desirable. In other word, the market would benefit those who are sexier. This often comes at the lost of those less desirable. A rich male that mate with many females can make other males don’t get any. A pretty woman getting a lot of money from a rich male will reduce the amount of money available for other women. Moreover, many women share the gene of less desirable male. Humans maximize the interest of their genes. Those women feel they wouldn’t be rich if they’re a male. So they tend to side with the opinion of mediocre middle class men.
Hence, we have all sex laws against consensual acts for the same reason envy got developed: To alter sexual selection in favor of those with little to offer.
Economically, lost of productivity due to restrictions of free sex is huge. The rich male and the pretty woman lose a lot, the other, don’t really get anything.
Reducing the Influence of Envy
Now, if envy is so damaging, there will be a huge gain that the best and brightest rich smart males will get if influence of envy is lessen. Obviously!
But how?
No matter how wrong envy people are, they have power. Eventually, the strong win, the win is right. So how do we fight envy?
Global Competition
One way is through global competition. Say A enriches himself by $10 million. Say A acts created a business opportunity, that benefits B by $1 million. Read that… Capitalism doesn’t hurt the poor. At the least capitalism don’t help the poor as much as the poor would hope. However, we don’t hurt the poor. Without inter society competition, B will hate A. Seriously. Why? Because A’s apparent wealth will exceed B. A makes B look poorer. In the competition to attract females, A reduces B’s gene pool survival. Humans’ emotions are designed to survive in the gene pool. So B will hate A. Got it?
Now with inter society competition, B can simply hire a woman from poorer society. Tada… Now A and B live peacefully. This is why I strongly support globalization.
Globalization is nice. It’s coming to your doorstep quite quickly. Still we can do more than that to fight envy. There are only few countries that embrace economic freedom. In the last centuries, those are mainly western civilizations with a hand full of small Asian countries. The numbers are growing. However, as long as there is still a poor country in this world, the government in rich country can still prosecute productive people that will still be better off oppressed by the envy in their home country rather than moving to an even more fucked up country.
The country that’ll embrace free economy will get prosper obviously. Once they get prosper, their ruling class will start oppressing the productive again due to envy. The rich need to run away to poorer countries that’ll start learning their lesson. At the end all countries will be rich, which is good. However, after that, there is no where else to run from the envy and we can speed the process up even further.
What’s the other way?
The Other Humane Way
In ancient time,
Zhuge Liang, a military officers for Shu, are needed in Xi Chuan. Before he left Jing Zhou, he asked the guardian of Jing Zhou, Guan Yu, “What would you do, if Wei and Wu join force to attack Jing Zhou?” Guan Yu said, “I’ll fight them both.” Zhuge said, “If that’s what you’ll do, Jing Zhou is in great danger.” “So, what should I do?” asked Guan. Zhuge said, “Ally with Sun Quan, fight Cao Cao.
What’s the result? Zhuge was the most feared military advisor during his time. He is well known till now for the battle of red wall. In that war, he advised his boss Liu Bei to flee the small number of troops they have, ally with Sun Quan and fight Cao Cao. During that war, the 100,000 allied troops manage to burn Cao’s 1 millions troops. This is done after successfully tricking Cao Cao to link all his ships together.
Two generations after Zhuge Liang, the Shu created Zhuge’s statue to effectively scare off invading Wei troops.
The hot headed Guan Yu did not heed Zhuge’s advice. When Cao and Sun attacked, Guan fights both. Guan Yu’s city was captured by Sun’s military officers, Lu Meng. Lu Meng ordered the civilians in the captured city to sing folk songs. This made many Guan’s troop home sick and deserted. Guan Yu, who can single handedly defeated 10,000 soldiers in a “fair fight” due to his relatively larger hit point and high slashing damage, was captured in an ambush.
Lu Meng beheaded Guan Yu. Out of fear for Liu’s retaliation, Sun Quan presented Guan’s head to Cao Cao. Liu Bei, which is Guan Yu’s sworn brother, attack Sun Quan nevertheless as a retaliation. However, without Zhuge on his side, Liu Bei lost hundreds of thousands of troops to Sun Quan’s teenage prodigious military advisor, Lu Xun.
You can play as Guan Yu and Zhuge Liang in the famous game Dynasty Warriors in http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/game/925558.html.
There are many things that can be learned here. Most important of all, like CEOs and entrepreneurs, insanely high paid officers, like Zhuge Liang, Lu Xun, and Lu Meng, did earn their salary. Any countries or businesses that want to have any chance of scoring something will do well preferring to hire 1 military officers rather than 10,000 additional mediocre troops. That should give some answers to commies that think that every body deserves equal salary.
More importantly, it teaches the importance of not antagonizing everyone. The strong win, the win’s right. The envy is “right” despite “wrong” because they are plenty. If we want our cause to stand, we need a strong and plenty ally too.
When pure capitalism is opposed by the needy and the envy, libertarian is Guan’s way of simply opposing both. When that happens, freedom and productivity will be in great danger.
As someone rich and abhor violent, the way to do it would be to bribe people to our side to balance the power of the envy. Got that far?
Libertarian ideas may be ideal, but that’s not how reality works. The rich and the smart are minority. Either through voting or through war, we’ll lose.
Feed the Needy, Give Them Cash
In ancient time, when a king reduces tax, allow free trades, and encourage meritocratic business practice, will that king be richer or poorer than other king? Does such king deserve to be richer? Should such king be richer than the other kings? By encouraging meritocracy, he increases productivity. So, it’s quite profitable to ensure such kings be richer. That will give intensives for kings to embrace meritocracy and individual freedom.
Now many people will oppose what I said. After all, a king gets his power in-consensually. However, for a while, we can think of government as a business too and it’s citizen as its customers. Under democracy, the citizens are also the stock holders or kings.
Now I won’t defend democracy. I didn’t invent it. But so far, from all the frogs that we’ve kissed, feudalism, dictatorship, anarchy, democracy seems to be the one working fine. After all, voting is way more peaceful than civil war, and hence a cheaper way to decides a policy.
Like it or not, the people are kings. We, the capitalists often say that we need intensive to be productive. Why don’t we give some intensives to use voting power in a way that’ll direct the law toward meritocracy? It’s how it’ll ever works.
Many lost of the rich do not benefit the poor. Laws that are envy motivated hurt the rich without benefiting the poor. Such lost tend to hurt the poor too. If only the poor want to abolish all those envy motivated laws, then the rich will be greatly profited. What about sharing the profit with those with voting power?
Get Freedom and Protection from the Needy
I know this sound like legitimizing money earned through power rather than productivity. But it happens big anyway. If we can get this much smaller, that should at least be a start.
One unworkable solution yet is to bribe people to get their vote. We “buy” their vote. Currently, the rich cannot simply buy the vote from the poor. That’s because it’s illegal. The equivalent acts need to be brokered by a special brokers called politicians. Ideally, voting should be openly tradable so we can cut off the middle man. C’mon. We know that those vote worth some huge money. When people use his voting power to get a job, he’s using his vote to make more money. It’s how it really works.
We cannot directly buy and sell vote, but we have politicians coming up with bullshits after bullshits effectively doing that. If everybody knows the real issue, I am sure others will know how to do something equivalent with that much more efficiently. Check http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293846/ for inspiration.
But buy from who? There are two large groups of people in the world that oppose capitalism. One is envy, the other is needy. Which one is cheaper to appease? The needy obviously. So what about if we pay the needy to mitigate the effect of envy? To hell with stamping welfare program. It’ll be far more efficient than if government or envy middle class handle the money.
Just give them food, shelter them, and give them cash so they can start their own business. In exchange, demand them to support more freedom.
Remember, governments main job is to protect individual freedom. It’s about time our compensation plan give intensives for voters to do their job right.
Why rewards bad business with tariff and subsidy? Why rewards envy people with sex laws? Why let government actively embrace prejudices to serve the interest of envy? Why rewards less productive workers with minimum wage and anti immigration laws?
If a welfare recipient vote against all those very costly governments’ intervention, give him cash. Tell them, “Thank you for choosing individual freedom. Capitalism is abundance. Here’s some scrap for you.”
Better yet, for even bigger intensive, don’t just give scraps. Be generous. Saving scraps is how the poor and the middle class are doing it. Successful people think big.
Figure 6: Why scrapping out doesn’t work? Ask David Schwartz Ph.D.
Most of the money you’ve lost are simply money you could have earned but don’t. There’s plenty out there. Don’t think too much about the small money lost to bribe the poor. For once, it’ll be 10 times lesser than the money lost due to envy nowadays. Think how much more money we can make when we’re free!
For examples. With huge
Tell the needy that it’ll be their reward for defending the rich from the envy. Tell the people that it’s their reward for embracing meritocracy, upholding individual freedom, and governing well. They deserve it. Really…
Pay the poor with cash if they support the interest of the financially productive. The poor would love it. Just make sure we, the rich, get much more in return. There’s a lot to be gain when influence of envy is gone. It’s win win.
If your country is not democratic, then the people will vote with their long bows. I am sure you can come up with some similar equivalent arrangements. At the end, the sperm must flow. Balance of power must be maintained.
The Abundance of Free Market
You see, the wonder of capitalism is that it puts people in some proper alignment. Capitalism encourages people to be productive. Under pure capitalism, magically enforced by a real almighty God, the exact resources allocations that maximize ones’ profit are the exact allocation that maximizes productivity as a whole.
Evolution theory can actually help us see how far we are from this ideal. Humans’ basic instincts are designed for gene pool survival. Given that productive individuals, like Bill Gates, only have one wife with no concubines and 1 daughter, we’re far from meritocracy enough within that direction. Deregulating free sex will fix this. If we deregulate sex, then the motivation to maximize productivity as a whole will be much more aligned with humans’ nature.
The salary a worker gets under capitalism is the same with the marginal usefulness of one such worker. For example, if a society have too few doctors and yet there are many sick people that are willing to pay large amount of money to be cured, then one additional doctors will get paid a lot. Brick layers will then switch jobs to become doctors, deal makers, or entrepreneurs to earn higher salary. The switching require IQ, empathy, or capital respectively. In a sense that’s how it works.
So that people are motivated to be productive, the more productive a person, the more the person should get. Those who are $5/hour more productive should be $5/hour richer. Not $2.5/hour due to income tax, not $10/hour due to governments anti immigration laws.
Well, actually this is not exactly true and there is plenty of exception when we take into account peripherals effects.
If you contribute $1000 to the market, you’ll get $1000. Well, the truth is, in many business techniques, for every $1000 you make, you’ve contributed $10,000 due to peripherals aspects. Conservative economic theory still underestimates the wonderful abundance of free trade capitalism.
Think it this way, say someone steal $1000 for you. Say it requires $10,000 to find the thief and put the thief to jail. If we do not take into account peripherals effects then the act of putting thieves to jail will not make any economic sense.
However, putting thieves to jail maintain the importance of self full filing belief and expectation that the way to make money is through productivity, not work. Stealing and robbing is a work too, but should and will be punished for its counter productive natures. The same ways, blue collar workers do not deserve more money than their marginal productivity.
Increase the perceived market value of your product by $1 can increase your revenue by $1 million if you sell 1 million copies of the product.
Increase your business’ annual profit by $1, and you can increase the franchise fee you charge for it. Increase your company’s profit by $1 and within a typical 1 to 30 profit per price ratio, the companies’ worth will increase by $30.
The extra $29 doesn’t come from workers’ exploitation Karl. It comes from extra productivity coming from a reasonably higher expected believe of return on investment correctly signaled through past performance and integrity.
If that believe is correct, which is often true because the investors have intensive to be correct, then there is extra productivity in allowing investors to properly put their money in the right business. If the believe is false, than the market will correct it.
The believes are quite accurate because investors have intensives to be correct. It's like getting A's in your exam and get a scholarship or job because of that. Whatever grade you get in the school is not by itself productive. The productivity is indirect through correct signaling of your capability. When you get A's in your courses, you signal you have high IQ. So people want to hire you. Of course, there are cheaper ways to measure IQ, but governments prohibit usage of IQ for employment decisions, hence, ensuring it takes at least 22 years to burn money.
The same way, your business financial statement is your rapport. Running a business well signals that you're a good leader. So investors like to bet their money on you. Got it?
Wealth is earned by value times leverage. In the beginning, the value can come from say, higher technology, leading to higher product automation, or a highly important e-book, addressing social problems. Then those values are leveraged by a system that sells the product.
The value times leverage become productivity, which is profit. Now the business that makes such profit is also valuable. Such value difference can then be leveraged again by franchise or IPO.
A technique of creating such huge value is often mimicked by others for free because capitalists make so much money that abundance wealth just overfilled left and right.
Then the cock that produces such wealth becomes valuable too. Women like superior cock. Such cocks are then leveraged through natural sexual selection because richer cocks can attract and bribe more females. See how abundance capitalism is?
When you make $ 1 million productively, and you use the money to please your desire, you will also maintain the beliefs that productivity lead to happiness. Also when you get richer through productivity, women will be more likely to choose you. Your kids, inheriting your talent will be more likely to be productive. All those are extra productivity way beyond your $1 million salary or profits you earn.
Of course this doesn’t include the non marginal profits of trade. If a buyer buys something for $10, that’s because he think that thing worth more than $10. That thing can worth $20 or $100 for him, yet he only pays $10. The total average cost, or even the marginal cost for goods production is even less than $10. So the trade mutually benefits both the buyers and sellers. So who lose? No body (unless, perhaps, the envy). The extra profits come from extra productivity outs of thin air through trades.
Look at this e-book. By writing this, I, and by reading this, you, are trying to make a better world. Our wish or at least my wish is that humans’ interests are more properly aligned with productivity through this e-book where the rich and the poor are profited. Hence, there will be more productivity.
Even without my ideas of buying those votes, the poor will still get help. However, the rich and the poor will still get even more if they cooperate.
Of course, our selfish interests far outweigh altruistic preference. The mistake of most social system is that it counts heavily on minor natures for productivity.
Many people, for example think that selfishness is evil. Rather than coming up with ways how selfishness leads to productivity, they simply criminalize selfishness. Yes we’re generous. We’re not that generous. System condemning selfishness, like socialism, or theocracy, produces little productivity. Capitalism, fixes their error.
Lao Tze said that counting on benevolence is like fishes living in dry rivers wetting each other with saliva. Adam Smith said, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
Don’t Curse Privilege, Acquire It!
The title for this section used to be “Equal share for everyone.” Wait wait… I know what this sound. It’s not what I mean.
You see, pure libertarian capitalist make the same mistake in politic the commies are making in private sectors. Those pure libertarians expect everyone to vote in favor of morality, fairness, and justice. Just like we cannot count on benevolence and morality to increase productivity in private sectors, we surely can’t count heavily on those non-senses to motivate people to vote for freedom.
For them to vote in favor of freedom, they need intensives. Bribes work! Concentrating bribes to politicians through conventional bribes or political donation create intensive to be politically powerful. However, bribing everyone a little bit, will remove intensives to accumulate military and political power. It’s the lesser evil compared to global and civil war. It’s the oil we put to grease the wheel. Yes, the oil cost something. Sure an employee cost something too. Just get things done and make way more money.
So yes, there are exceptions to marginal utility theory.
However, such exceptions usually go to the better. So let’s just pretend this
is true for a while. Deviations from these simple basic principles are called
market
Market
So if God comes to the president and gives $100 billions, we
need to
Wealth earned through productivity should be
What about if there is no God giving away $100 billions/year? Well, tough luck, but we have natural resources to replace God. What about if we used up all of our natural resources? Well when a country borrow money from the World Bank and lend the money to the entrepreneur, that country can get some income. What about if the World Bank don’t want to lend money? Governments can print citizenship and sell it. What about if the citizenship are worthless?
Governments can raise punishments against those who commit crimes against tax payer. Murdering a tax paying productive citizen costs more to the economy thank killing a burglar or robbers. Say someone robs you and you kill the vermin yet fail to claim self defense. So what? No biggie. It’s just a worthless robber. This arrangement will greatly improve intensives to be productive. Better yet, let people select the sort of crime they want to be protected from and how much money they’re willing to pay for it. This ensure that governments will not over protect us against victimless crime.
Some people would think that paying everyone will require a raise in income tax, like what the liberals often propose. I’ll show later that, under fairer tax system, we can do this without any income tax.
If all fair ways fail, try capital tax.
I’ll show later that relative to income tax, capital tax can cost much less for the same amount of money taken for the rich, and obviously for the poor.
Capitalism is actually a derogatory term for free trades made by Karl Marx. Karl had a prejudice against richer people. Hence, even though free trades reward productivity he comes out with ways to some how argue that the rich is parasitic. How? First he exagerated the importance of capital to earn more money. So he coined the term capitalism as a name for free trades. The truth capital advantage is only a small portion of free trades. And then he exaggerated the link between capital and land ownership in the past. Of course, land ownership during feudal agrarian age is traceable to privilege and power rather than productivity.
While capital is important, especially if you don’t have any at all, after a certain point, most of ones’ wealth can be traced to ones’ talent, one’s diligent, and ones’ choices. Hence, many highly productive people have really high income to capital ratio. Importance of capital is only huge for those born in extreme poverty, which is the sort of people socialist work on.
Surprise, capital is one of the least reasons why many support capitalism. Most people support capitalism because they are more productive workers rather than having a lot of capital. Jack Welch earns more money not because he has more capital. Jack earns more money because he manages capital well. Most capitalists and socialists will be glad if government stop taxing income and start taxing capital, especially land. Even capital owners will be glad because lack of income tax will increase their return beyond the capital tax.
The one that wouldn’t be happy is low tech owners of huge piece of land. Those people have low income to capital ratio. In fact, both proponent of free trades and socialism would agree that land owners tend to be parasitic. Historically, unlike other methods of wealth and capital acquisition, land is not produced. It’s there in the beginning. So the way some people own more land is quite dubious even by meritocracy standard.
But that’s not all, during civil war; farmers in the
Southern side of
Nowadays, farmers get subsidy. Ouch…. Other countries do not like American subsidy for farmers. So they impose tariffs against other American’s product hurting more productive legitimate business. Now, many land owners’ bitch that government can seize their land even after a just compensation. Well the compensation should be more than just I think because this is not a consensual trade.
However, an underused land that never gets sold is simply a land that gets in the way of true productivity. Moreover, taxing capital rather than income will create intensive for under utilized land to be sold and less intensive for government to seize land.
I can’t think of any reason why a socialist would support taxing workers to subsidize huge land owners. Most proponents of meritocracy free trades will also hate that.
And that’s not all. Many people oppose technological progresses that improve labor productivity. That must be because their interests are hurt by technological progress. When technology goes up, labors’ productivity will go up. Entrepreneurs will then have intensive to higher more workers. This will create a demand for labors that’ll increase labors’ wage.
This may not seem to be fair. It’s the entrepreneur and the scientists that come up with ways to increase blue collar labors’ productivity. Yet, labors with the same talent, diligent, and capability with the rowers in Roman ship suddenly live a much higher standard of living, their leaders’ innovative invention. It’s capitalism magic that benefit everyone.
What do labors do with those who invent machines? The first machines are destroyed by labors. How come? Because there is an insidious third parties that trick those labors into destroying those machines.
What happen is industries that don’t tech up will not see their workers becoming more productive. However, they too have to pay bigger labor costs. This is the same reasons why the southerners demand slavery, to prevent the increase of labor cost due to higher techs in US.
Until today, many governments’ restrictions that are advertised as improving labors’ condition are simply governments’ trick to help politically connected bad business at the cost of everyone, including labors. Governments act will encourage business with lower labors’ productivity that will then tend to lower labors’ wage.
For example, in
The question is which kind of farmers? The land owners or the labors? When you own capital or any kind of wealth, you are capital owners. When you work on capital, even if it’s your own, you are workers. Most of us are both. It’s very easy for governments to classify a group of people as workers to gain sympathy while arguing that some workers are “capitalists,” which suggest capital ownerships to people that are actually workers, like CEOs and entrepreneurs.
Unlike Karl Marx, I am not going to be cruel to capital owners. However, I wouldn’t do the opposite either. As a capitalist, I don’t see how we should deviates from the market out of pity for some rich capital owners at the expense of workers. However, this is the effective pattern of many governments regulation under socialists’ pretext.
A good way to see which ones are workers and which ones are capital owners is to check their income to worth ration. Capital owners own a lot of money. Workers get salary. Capital owners get interest rate.
Workers are productive now. Capital owners are presumably productive in the past. I said presumably, because though most are, a small percentage, mainly in un-free countries also acquire wealth through corruption and manipulation. In such heated topics like this, we should avoid the blue vs red generalization. Got it?
Ignoring risk, if you use your own capital to make 20% return on investments, you get two paychecks. The first is your interest from your capital, about 4%/year which you pay to your self. The other 16% is your salary as capital managers which you also pay to your self. If we take into account risk, then you get 3 paychecks. Your interest rate, your salary as a capital manager, and your gamble winning from the gambling we called business. If we take into account trusts then you get 4 paychecks. Those are your interest rate, salary, gambling winning, and your trust ability to the capital owner. In which case, the capital owner is your self.
Say you borrow money from a bank and start your own business. The capital owners are those who save their money in the bank. If capitalists mean owners of capital, the middle class are the capitalists then. You, the working entrepreneur get the full fruit of your labors, which is the huge business’s profit minus the small 5-7%/year costs of money paid to capital owners.
Capitalism benefits workers while punishing badly managed capital that fail to improve workers’ productivity. Workers unite! Get more money from badly managed capital and give it to the workers by supporting capitalism. Confused? Me too.
In rice restrictions case, for ease of analysis, we should count farm owning farmers as receiving two kinds of pay check. They get paid for their work as farmers, and they also get a farm rent which they pay to themselves. Farmers who don’t own land are farm workers. Farmers that don’t work on the land are land lords, or capital owners. Often, they are different individuals. Governments just use the same words for them to confuse you.
Farm labors’ salary in
When governments tax cigarette, for example, the clover farmers, the tobacco farmers, the cigarettes manufacturers, the cigarette labor workers, and the consumers of cigarette all pay for a portion of that tax. However they don’t pay it with the same proportion. The one that don’t have alternatives are the one paying the larger portion of the tax. In this case, that would be the tobacco farmers, the cigarettes manufacturers, and the cigarettes’ addicts. The elastic labors, that can work in other industry should their salary drops will not see a huge salary drops due to cigarettes’ tax. Hence, the elastic labors don’t get hurt by cigarettes tax, nor will they get help by cigarettes subsidy.
Now farm labors are not profited by prohibition of rice import. Who does? Land owners.
So who pays for the restriction? What? Someone pays. Yes. When we deviates from the proper alignment, the total productivity, the holy big pie, gets less. So when some gains, the other pays. Who pay? The rice consumers. By prohibiting rice imports, governments artificially increase the price of rice. This is effectively a tax for rice consumers and subsidy for rice producers. The implicit tax and subsidies, as usual are divided inversely proportional with elasticity. Unless your stomachs are elastic, chance is you’ll consume the same amount of rice no matter how high the price is. That would be true, especially if you work hard in the farm. The farm labors, like all labors pay the full price of increased rice price. The fertilizers subsidies are also paid from labor’s salary.
And finally, Indonesians have harder time exporting their
textiles because other countries don’t open up their borders for Indonesians’
textiles. The Indonesian textiles, being able to earn profit honestly without
governments’ intervention would have increased labors’ salary in
All this is for the benefits of farm owners. By supporting the socialists’ agenda of restricting rice import, the commies have forsaken the interests of labor for the interest of land owners. This happens while capitalists try to profit workers from being responsible for the lost of low tech and badly managed capitals and businesses.
Of course, westerns’ countries act of subsidizing their farm
product is unfair. It’s unfair to their chips manufacturers, that don’t get
subsidy and yet have to compete for workers with the farmers. It’s unfair to
American tax payer. The western countries are not being unfair to developing
countries. When Americans’ subsidizes their farm products and then sell it to
Moreover, the rich and productive shouldn’t be the one to
blame for lack of initial capital. Extreme poverty can be caused by ones’
parents’ fault. For example, there are still a few starving kids in
Those who have low standard of living often want to gain higher standard of living, even at the expense of gene pool survival. Those whose standard of living is too high often want bigger gene pool survival, even at the expense lower standard of living now that their money now has to be divided to more offspring. People automatically want to do it naturally. Disparity of wealth will diminish naturally when people follow their natural tendency.
Moreover, under a deviation from capitalism we called tax, one thing is obvious. Income tax hurt workers more, while capital tax punishes badly managed capital. Ignoring the riches’ “tax elasticity,” only badly managed capital will pay less income tax than capital tax. Those who properly manage their capital will pay less tax if governments’ tax capital. Bad businesses might pay more. This too will create intensives for badly managed capital owners to hire competent CEO workers, increasing workers salary.
Capital tax also works as protection fees as those who have more capitals are benefited more by the army. Moreover, currently, catastrophic implicit capital taxes often happen anyway through riots, frivolous lawsuits, and threat of nationalization. A country that tax .5% to .75% of capital per year will create a very strong intensives for the people to prevent those capital repulsing events and rules from ever happening.
Remember, at best, whatever the system is, democracy, oligarchy, republic, double helix, monarchy, communist, what the fucking ever, governments are simply the biggest triad. Hence, it’s natural that we pay our governments our share of protection fee so that they leave us alone.
Too Good to Be True?
The main complain for taxing productively earned wealth and give it in equal share for everyone welfare, is that it can be too good to be true for the needy. If people can live comfortably without working then they’re not motivated to work.
This can be an issue. In fact, it’s the main issue. Surprised? The problem with welfare is not that it costs too much. The main problem is many are concerned that financially unproductive people will simply happily breed and breed taking money unfairly from those who are productive.
So what’s the current solution? Well, usually, after government take money from the rich, before government give it to the poor, government will evaporate the money first. The money that’s left is indeed used to feed the poor. However, the foods are shitted on first.
Don’t believe me? What happen when governments decide the kind of education to feed your kid? Delicious educational food, like porn, is called dangerous from minor to protect kids from realization of possible happiness. Then your kids will swallow lots and lots of hard core bullshits to ensure they’re full of shit once they grow up. When they do, they’ll demand more government.
In a sense, it’s envy too, but reasonable. I felt that envy when I was young. Who doesn’t feel envy to welfare recipients that don’t work and yet have more sex and survive in the gene pool better than a worker that works day and night as programmers, only to be taxed latter to support welfare recipients’ kids. Is this envy justified? Let’s see…
In one hand, let’s consider this. A criminal or a murderer should suffer for committing harm for others. The problem why jail isn’t fun is not because we don’t have enough money to buy video games for inmates. The problem is that we want suffering to those who do others’ harm. Their suffering provides deterrence for stealing. That will help the rest of us leave more happily.
The same way, failure to greatly and positively contributing to society is in a sense, “evil” and should be condemned to a less happy life than those who contribute more. The one that’s productive have to be much happier for some intensive to be productive.
On the other hand, it’s stupid to waste efficiency anywhere.
What about this? If the too good happen due to increased efficiency of wealth
What about if the rich want to pay more money in exchange of even more votes favoring freedom? Under no circumstances reducing efficiency in large scale can be an optimum solution. In game theory term, it can’t possibly be a pareto optimal solution. There has to be a better way.
We’ll worry about the too good to be true aspects when it
For example, what happen if some adult males or females make
many kids? If we just
Unless we can sell those kids for food, making kids, as we
know, is not an economically productive act, by it self. Those kids may be very
productive to the economy 20years down the road, but the other humans don’t
have obligation to feed that kids during that 20 years. Even productive people
have to get a deal first before he gets paid for the fruit of his labor.
Rewarding unproductive acts with money before a person provides service or
secure a deal is a market
However, this particular problem can be fixed by arranging that only those within voting range get a share.
Now any parents that want to get more welfare money by making more kids needs to wait 18 years before he receives money through his kid. At that time, his kids just use the money for themselves. Also a 20 years old programmer that do not make any kid, or make only one will get the same amount of money with a 20 years old programmer having 5 kids. The one with fewer children will have more money and time for fun.
Moreover, we can arrange that citizenship can be inherited or sold. So those who make many kids will have to buy citizenships increasing governments’ revenue. After all, citizenships do carry some benefits, like protection, and it’s fair enough to pay for it.
I am sure many of you have better ideas than I am how to ensure that those who are not productive do not just keep making kids expecting the rest to effectively pay for their child support. That’s the biggest problem of welfare actually.
Moreover, after lots of tinkering, with some solutions I’ve proposed, I no longer think that the too good to be true aspect is too much of an issue. As a businessman, I can tell you that we don’t need workers. Hence we do not need unnatural intensive to motivate people to work. What we need is productivity.
There is no need to feel envy to the welfare recipients. Envy motivated concerns, even this one, usually leads to un-optimum solution. There has to be a way. There has to be a better way.
Advancement in technology profits everyone, including the poorest. Since 19th century, due to advancement in technology, we no longer need to enslave those dumber than us. We can just pay them.
Ask the northerners in US civil wars. The low tech southerners cannot compete with salary offered by the high tech northerners. So obviously, the northerners oppose slavery and the southerner supports it. It’s the trend. Higher tech societies tend to give better offer to their lower class.
Then technology got so advance, when slave jobs are moving to poorer country, the slaves in rich country protest. You know what, I think some countries have reached a point that we probably can just pay people to shut up and demand capitalism in more important area. This will create intensives for the poor in all other countries to demand capitalism too, and will eventually make all worlds capitalistic.
People that demand jobs can be far more parasitic than those that demand welfare. After all, there is productivity in voting in favor of meritocracy and freedom. What businessmen need are not more workers. Businessmen need more freedom. So any citizens that vote for freedom deserve money more than those that insist of working.
As long as the money saved from the envy is more than the money spent on appeasing the needy, capitalists will still be benefited by appeasing the needy. My prediction is that we’ll be saving 10 times more money than the money we are now losing.
Now let’s ignore that productivity vs work and get back to intensives to work at all. After all, someone still have to be productive to pay all those bribes. That will always take some work, in regular capitalistic sense. What intensives do people have to be greatly productive?
We are told, in economy classes, that humans earn money by to fulfill their need. Humans’ utility function is a diminishing value of his wealth. There is a great use of money for the poor, however, the rich will not be happier even if he’s $1 million dollar richer.
Because humans make their money to fulfill their need, once their needs are satisfied, they no longer have strong intensives to work. Worst of all, if even those who are not productive at all have all their basic needs fulfilled, what’s the point of being productive in the first place? Not much.
If every people that do not work and do not become productive economically can eat, live and breed, than the world will be filled with more and more parasites. This welfare program may provide intensives to acquire political power rather than to be productive or to maintain bad economic system like communism.
In one hand, if the needy use their vote to diminish the influence of the envy, who says they’re not productive? On the other hand, still someone got to work. So how?
Well, our economic theory says that humans’ utility function gets reduced when he gets richer. The question is, by how much? Typical economic theory underestimates one great nature that gives us very strong intensives to be productive beyond what’s necessary for our need. That nature, the best trait of humanity, the one making us great is greed. Humans, especially the males are very greedy.
Selfish capitalistic greed is very good comrades. If economic systems are arranged that the way to get more is to become more productive, which is the essence of everything I said here, then greed is good. The more greedy people are the better. That’s capitalistic greed.
However, if people think greed is bad, it can be self
fulfilling. That will make greedy people unable to satisfy their greed through
public, honest mean. Donald Trump cannot show his management style in the
Apprentice, in countries like
People are always greedy. However, they get greedy outside the system. Because they achieve their greed outside the system, they have no intensives to do it politically correctly because they’ll face the wrath of society anyway. Such is the greed of commies, leaders, corruptors, and dictators.
Ambitious greed in a society that does not embrace productivity can be devastating too. Many people like Hitler achieve his ambition by politically correctly embrace the envy. However, such greed will leads to war and destructions.
However, if economic systems are arranged that the only way to satisfy greed is through honest productive mean, and then greed is great.
How do we encourage greed? Why people are greedy? How do we make everyone greedy?
Our basic instincts are designed for gene pool survival. Women pick rich smart males. That alone is plenty of intensives to be rich! That creates greed. Any poor people that demand deregulation of sex is already productive for they encourage greed.
Let’s just say I am the expert on this. The real issue is gene pool survival. All of our preferences can often be reduced to whether such preferences lead to our gene pool survival or not.
We want to earn money because somehow it serves our gene pool survival. If governments do not interfere with free consensual sex, richer males can attract and bribe more women for sexual favors. They will then make more kids. Women that pick richer males will get kids that are more likely able to make money, and have huge inheritance. Sons of richer males will mate with more females. Daughter of prettier females can aim for richer males.
Of course, for this to ever work, we need to eliminate most sex laws against consensual acts that effectively ration females to less desirable poor dumb males. Otherwise people will not be greedy enough, and welfare will be very expensive.
Regulation toward Productivity
Another issue is productivity. If government doesn’t guide the welfare money, then what will stop the laziest of the lazy, and the dumbest among the dumb, to just squander their money away?
Look at the Marxist. Karl Marx, for example, exploits his wife, and his children. He squandered his money away when he has it. Three of his children starve, and the other 2 commit suicides. Marx is a true commie, and we know many humans are like that.
However, invoking government to regulate
Thanks to the greed, some poor people will use their start
up capital in ways that’s even way more productive than what governments
describe. Some would start a business right away and build an empire rather
than moving slowly through the educational system. Some would learn faster than
the rest and make money earlier. Allowing government to regulate
Those who use their money wisely will survive better in the gene pool. Richer males attract more females. Richer females can aim for males that are even richer now that they no longer need money from the lower quality males. So even without government, the one that’ll survive in the gene pool are the one that use their money wisely.
Win some, lose some, overall, will it be better to got government to regulate the money or not? My answer is no by big margin. That’s because of the huge envy motivated lost of efficiency naturally occur in governments decision.
For example, in public school we are taught that every class that’s taught in public school is taught because it is useful. What about if welfare recipients use the money to drink beer rather than going to school learning all those mandatory important courses, such as learning your own native language…
The truth is, even drinking beer is already more productive than learning your own native language. You’re already able to speak your own language. The former will get you business contact, the latter is totally useless. My brothers drink a lot of beer from pubs to pubs and he makes money by supplying peanuts to those bars. Check http://howtolearnmath.com for how inefficient governments’ education is.
Due to high degree of governments’ bullshit and envy motivated arrangements, the market, not government, is a far fairer judge for productivity. If each of us gets free cash from natural resources, then those cash will be at least 10 times more productive under private hands than under governments’ hand.
Governments are heavily influenced by envy people. Hence, it’s natural that governments’ restrictions will tend to put some ceiling against the talented students.
Envy people would simply twist reality. When something is good, they got envy, so they try to prevent it, by calling it bad. Governments influenced by envy people will simply embrace the twisted reality. With that twisted information, most money in governments’ hand will simply evaporate.
I’ll give you a few examples, information that governments say to be dangerous for minors are useful educational information. Information that is harmful, and useless, like romance, is chocked down the throats of every kid in school.
What’s constituted better for an individual is open to argument of course. We usually judge it by what people choose. If a person is better of choosing A than B then he’ll choose A. Do we have other ways to confirm this? Yes we do.
Scientific evolution theory make pretty good guess of what human wants. Humans tend to maximize their gene pool survival. You can check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_Revolution for a brief introduction of it. The best book, which I know of, that explain the gene oriented approach of evolution theory is this one:
Figure tion>Figure Error! Bookmark not defined.:
The Selfish Gene. Many ideas from this e-book come from this genius, Richard
Dawkins
You can also learn some simple theories and get some freebies in http://genepoolsurvivalguide.com/genetips.htm.
So there are many interests. However the most important one are the best predictors. Males want to mate with as many smart pretty females as possible. That’s the whole point of getting rich!
Women want higher quality males and money. Free market mechanism, on unregulated sex, confirms these preferences.
There is no way to stop evolution. The best and brightest will always be the one on top, on average. That’s how we end up to be the smartest species in the planet. However, there is a lot that can be done to ensure that evolving is done in ways that improve humans’ living standard. Rather than killing each other, we can evolve by serving the market more. Free trades align productivity with wealth, and free sex align wealth with gene pool survival.
Now we know what humans natures are all about, I can give you many samples, where envy twists reality of good and bad.
If you make a lot of money, then envy people will say you’re
enslaved by money. This is while many envy people work from 9 to 5 for much
less money. Why, because they do not want to see you happy making a lot of
money they tend to
If a pretty woman show up naked in some magazine and make thousands of dollars, what would ugly women that have to suck low quality cock, for much less wage rate, in a legally binding life long contract, we call marriage, would say? They’ll say that those women, that happily earn way more money than them with much less work is “exploited” and the whole acts should be prohibited.
So under envy motivated philosophy we can’t really tell which one is good and which one is bad. Governments do nothing when Tracy Lord got beaten up by her parents. Governments do nothing when kids are beaten up in school. Getting beaten up is bad okay.
Yet, when Tracy, 15 years old at that time, ran from her house, faked her ID to perform in porn consensually, it causes such an outrage that now all adult webmasters have to keep copies to ensure that their models are of legal age. Obviously this does more to give undue administrative burden for the porn industry rather than to protect any underage females. Not only that, porn actresses are now in danger that their important bio records are in the hand of thousands of webmasters, some of which might be quite insane.
If
Not only the performance in porn is consensual, it is so
profitable that
Envy motivated mindset drives people crazy. If that’s done on individual level, than the damage is minimum because under the free market, the crazy and stupid will simply hurt themselves, and more importantly, their own gene pool survival.
However, under democracy, where everyone runs everyone else’s life, the stupid, the crazy, and the envy will run your life. Of course this will give untold misery.
Another issue is appeasement. When people have power over us and we pay them because of their power, rather than because of what they consensually offer us, then we appease. This motivates people to have power over us rather than making consensual offers. Again, I don’t think this is the case. The poor and needy do get paid because they vote in favor of the rich, and we have a common enemy, namely the envy. Now you got to hold on a little bit here. I am not a full fledged politician yet. I got to learn more game theory. It doesn’t look like appeasement to me.
The Need for Bull Shits
My friend told me that people need to feel that they’re earning their money. You know what, if a group of people want to feel they’re earning their money, then they have to actually earn it. They can be businessmen or something. Demanding higher salary through force is not productive. This euphemism has cost a lot of us enough already. Even robbery is working.
Some people would concern that if countries race to please the productive than there isn’t enough intensive to pay the needy. Don’t worry… When something maximizes productivity as a whole, aim for that first. Worry about how that’ll profit you latter. Give and you shall be given. That’s how to get rich. History shows that increased wealth also benefits the poorest 10% of the people in any country. I suppose that there will be a balance of power between the needy and the envy. So yea, when one gets richer, the rest will get richer too. If not that, there will be others.
Of course, if the needy and envy demand too much from the capitalist, the capitalist can flee the capital to other country. Also, we can always re-sumon Pinochet.
What do the Productive get?
What changes the rich and the poor can mutually beneficially fight for?
Well, if the rich pay the poor with enough cash, the poor can, in return do a lot for the rich. Give and take is like breathing.
You see, big lost of the rich happen due to envy. The rich can ask the poor to fight those envy motivated laws. What are those? Anti prostitution is obviously one. Linking child support laws to a man’s wealth is another.
What else? Deregulating drugs and organ trading will be good too. What about legalizing porn?
If we just pay the needy enough welfare, they don’t need jobs right? There go immigration laws. The poor don’t need to work just for some basic standard of living. So, we don’t need minimum wage. Only those that are smart enough to earn a lot of money through work should work. The rest can just keep their bribe.
Expensive job creation, tariff, quota, and job protection can go away too. So the financially productive are less hindered to make more money.
So far, I have only predicted the schism between the lefty needy liberal democrat vs the rightfully envy republican. What else?
Figure 7: World's politic properly explained
If you look at Figure 7, it’s hard to say which one is the lesser evil, is it the right wing or the left wing. You see, if we look cursorily, the right wing seems to have a case. If sexy poor people want to have free sex, fine, not with my money.
However, for males, sexy=wealthy. So most males are in the middle. They are either authoritarians or libertarians. If you examine all sex laws against consensual sex, they tend to ration females to poorer males rather than richer males.
For females, sexy=pretty. That explains why right and left divides usually happen among females. Proponents of consensual sex laws are usually females. While the males are divided between libertarian (=sexy and productive) and authoritarians, females are divided between individual feminists and radical feminists.
Keep in mind that while males and females have different individual interests, they tend to have similar political interests. That’s because humans maximize the copy of their genes. When we choose strategies that affect many humans a little bit, we’re not selfish, we’re xenophobic.
Because “chosen” males survive in the gene pool, a female political interest can then be approximated by her interest if she were a male. If she’s smart and pretty, she’ll oppose sex laws. If she’s dumb and ugly, she’ll support sex laws against consensual acts. You can see the detail of this argument in http://genepoolsurvivalguide.com/genetips.htm
Moreover, females tend to be more active in politic. That’s because they don’t usually have to work as hard as males to earn a living and hence have more extra time.
A male’s opinions tend to be more reasonable because his are constantly checked by the market. Womyn’s opinions are checked by nobody. Not the market, and definitely not by males. Due to huge sperms to eggs ratio, most males will simply agree with whatever his girlfriend or wife says. “What ever you say Darling! Just keep sucking.”
Fairer Tax System
All tax and wealth
Fair tax is tax that cause little market
For example, in
Under capitalism, income correlates very well with productivity. Under classical model in micro economy class, income is productivity. In practice, many products have low marginal costs and high revenue gain that income tends to be lower than productivity, but still a very good measure of it.
For example, a manufacturer that increases his income and productivity by saving full supply will be hurt twice. He got hurt first, because of the tax over the higher income. Then he got hurts again because of the reduced savings due to full subsidy. If saving gasoline don’t help as much, factories that save gasoline will be out competed by factories that don’t bother.
If a strategy that is more productive is not done due to anything, we deviate from maximization of productivity as a whole. That’s a good sign for room of improvement. There has to be a better way.
Usually, governments, creating market
Of course, Indonesian’s schemes to subsidy gasoline don’t help the poor efficiently. The poor, as usual, get less per capita, because they consume less fuel.
Taxing income and paying subsidy with it, is a sample of government taking from the productive, and regulate it, in ways that the poor are not very profited too. As usual, the one mostly benefited by it are the huge gasoline consumers, which are usually the middle class.
So how should governments tax in ways that minimize market
Why do I say give income to everyone? Why not give it to the
poor? Because concentrating welfare only to the poor will
The working middle class, though currently gets larger share of welfare, is nevertheless more productive than the truly unemployed. They’re parasitic simply because they get way more than their productivity. However, welfare asides, they’re still more productive.
And why tax gasoline? First of all, because the poor, like
everyone else, got cash, they no longer starve due to increased gasoline’
price. More importantly, taxing gasoline are more fair because usage of
gasoline are proportional with usage of road that’s build by gasoline. Taxing
based on usage
Under free market we also buy only what we use. Say you spend $5 to buy a widget. That can only happen if that widget provides usefulness for you more than the $5 you create.
These give proper de-motivation for entrepreneurs to build totally useless or overpriced products. Entrepreneurs then properly cut costs as long as the cost reduction is still more than the productivity reduction.
Taxing based on usage, emulate, though imperfectly, free market mechanism, on governments action. If people only pay, and pay fully, for what they use, then governments will at least have an intensive to produce something which usefulness are not too lower than its costs. Otherwise no body would buy the widget produced to avoid paying the tax.
Under income tax, there is no check and balance in government to ensure that the money is properly used. If government tax income by $5 and give away a widget, then you will take the widget even if you value it less than $5. If everyone makes the same income, for example, the scheme effectively forces you to buy the useless widget. Such is the case for public school.
In fact, envy influence, governments to use the money in ways that’s actually counter productive, like encouraging monogamous marriage, or promoting fatalistic beliefs that wealth is evil.
Income Tax
What about income tax laws? What? Doesn’t that benefit the poor? Really? Rich mean own a lot of money. Income tax laws hurt the high income, not the highly wealthy. Income tax hurt the poor that want to productively create wealth. Income tax punishes the diligent, the talented, and the smart.
Say you’re diligent poor workers. Say you have a rich neighbor that got chickz and $ 1 million dollars stored and protected by the government. Then you said to your self, I want to be rich too. That’s good. That’s the positive way to manifest envy.
When someone like Bill Gates earns a lot of money, say to your self, I’ll exceed him. Don’t curse wealth, acquire it. Then you earn $1000. Your living cost is also $1000 month. That is you work from month to month. Your neighbor, being the capital owner, just sleeps. Then what?
Your neighbor just sleeps and pays no tax even though he’s much richer than you because he has no income. You, even though you have much less money have to pay $500 per month. Because you’re poorer, when other country attacks, the poor end up defending their neighbor’s property for free.
Does this ease workers to catch up capitalist owners’ wealth? No. Workers unite! Abolish income tax!
Imagine if government tax capital by .5% year. Then your neighbor pays $5,000 per year, you don’t. I don’t exactly know the average, but some says that .5% capital tax is more than enough to replace 50% income tax in most semi capitalistic country. Now, assuming that you 2 are the only citizens in your country, that $5,000 goes to you. Now you have capital to hire immigrants, and start your own business, which is the high gear ways to get rich. Then you’ll catch up your neighbor’s wealth quickly. You profit poor foreigners by giving those jobs. God would be jumping with joy…
Then what? Your lazy neighbor will think. All this time I sleep to avoid income tax. Now, that income tax is gone, I’ll work on it, producing 20% ROI. That 20% minus .5% is still 19.5% ROI/year. That’s way more money than if he worked on his capital with 50% income tax. The latter will force him to pay 10% equivalent of capital tax. Now your neighbors earn more money too. Or better yet, your neighbors will lend his $1 million dollars worth of capital to you for you to work on. Now he can still be lazy and both of you make more money. Otherwise, you’ll soon get richer than him and his mistresses will switch to you kicking him out of the gene pool right?
The poor will less likely to create riots. What for? They
want foreigners to invest in their country. Riots drive capitals out. They
receive the benefit right away. The .5% capital tax per year is a
See? Income tax is envy motivated because it tends to hurt the talented and diligent among those starting up with the same capital. In capitalism, income means productivity. Income tax hurts everyone. The poor can demand government to tax capital rather than income tax for the benefit of the poor and the rich.
Okay, let’s get backed to Karl Marx. He’s wrong… I know. I
am not commies. But let’s take a look first of what Karl said. He said that
Sound libertarian isn’t it? And I must admit, during agrarian age he has some point. After all, during agrarian age, due to deviation of meritocracy, there isn’t much productivity. Wealth is mainly the stuffs that have already been there such as land. Those who acquire wealth do so because they’re a stronger knight that can charge through armies of long bows rather than because he’s a productive workers. However, Karl lived 200 years after the start of industrial age. At that time, huge portions of wealth can be easily traced to productivity or contemporary privilege, not pass privilege. Nowadays, many people still think like him.
As time goes by, more and more wealth is being rewarded due
to productivity rather than past privilege. For example, in
When all this happen, are the land owners ex privileged?
What happen in area that capitalism hasn’t touched? Some
governments
Capitalism rewards productivity. Some productive people save up the fruit of their labor into capital. Those who want to abolish capital will simply take money from the productive and give it to the powerful and privileged. They’ll actually strengthen the link between wealth and privilege rather than weaken it.
Two Things You Need to Know to Reduce Your Tax
The very first business class that I took in US was, “How to run an efficient business.” No. “How to improve productivity.” No. “How do we pay our workers higher, make the world a better place, and still make money.” No. My very first business class taught me how to avoid paying income tax.
Oh ya a word of warning. Things are not as simple as it seems. You need to consult lawyers before trying all these stunts.
You see. What is income? The formal standard definition of income is the amount of money you spent plus the increase of your capability to spend. For example, say you work in the office. Say you get $50,000 pay check. Say you spend $20,000 and save $30,000. What’s your income? The sum of $20,000 and $30,000 = $50,000. What about if you spend $1 and save $49,999? What’s your income? $1 plus $49,999=$50,000. Right Nelly?
So no matter how you spend your money your incomes remain the same. Governments make that easy for you. They help your self pay your tax before you even see the money. Isn’t that convenient?
Now, the entrepreneurs also have the same definition of income. However, they have 2 important deductions.
- Money you haven’t spent is not income yet. So we don’t pay tax on that. The tax is deferred till we spend it.
- Money we do spend is expenditure. So it’s deductible from our income.
Now, that sounds fair isn’t it? It is. Imagine if there is no deductible. A businessman spending $50,000 for services and sell it for $100,000 will have to pay 50% of $100,000, which is $50,000. That’s his whole income. If governments do not allow deductions, all business with less or equal then 50% profit margin will not be done. Can you imagine productivity that’s lost? So governments allow deduction. Income means profit in business. So it’s natural that the real taxable incomes have expenses deducted.
Now what about tax deferral? Well, say you work hard today so you can buy a burger 5 years from now. You don’t receive salary right? Your salary is 5 years from now.
Now, what about if you work hard building a house. And then you plan to sell that house 5 years from now. Within those 5 years you do not have “income.” At least not cash income. Some would say that during the 5 years, you increase your capability to buy by increasing the market value of your property. Yes. But we have such an understanding government that realizes that if they tax you before you have the chance to get cash then no body will build a house. Why pay tax now for a potential profit 5 years from now, if any. We don’t even know whether the house will sell for $ 1million or not. Without a sale transaction the market value is not even defined. Hence, there is a rule. Governments only tax transactions.
So governments do not tax all incomes but only income justified by real actual transactions.
What does that mean? Say you buy a house for $1 million. Say the next 20 year the market value of the house is $3 million. All right, how much your income is under the standard definition of income? $2 million dollar. But you haven’t sold the house yet. There is no transaction that justify that your house has increased its market value by $2 million dollar. So how much your taxable income is? Zero? We’re half way correct here.
You see, if you buy a knife. And you use the knife to cut trees. The knife becomes duller. Therefore it is no longer worth the original value. We call this depreciation. As goods grow older it becomes “obsolete.” Governments realize this. So they’ll allow you to count this depreciation as “expense” which is deductible from income.
So, after 20 years, your “taxable income” from the increase value of your house is minus $1 million. The $1 million can be used to balance your other income. Say you work and earn $1 million during those 20 years. To be more exact, say you work, and company you own and work for earn $1 million during those 20 years. It has to be a company the way things are set up. That company does not have any taxable income. That’s because you got that depreciation expense right?
I’ll explain why this must be a corporation latter. You really should consult lawyers for this to work out.
All right, let’s move on. Governments allow real estates to depreciate for 20 years. Just for simplicity sake. Say governments allow real estates to depreciate within 1 year. Then, you can use all your income to buy capital and pay no tax on those incomes, as long as you use it to buy capital. What we have is not that, but something close to it.
But the tax is not gone. It’s just deferred. When you sell that house for $ 3 million then you will have to recognize $ 3 million income. Moreover, the basis for your house takes into account your deduction. So governments will say, according to your book keeping you spend $0 for that house. You spent $1million but then the house “depreciate” and hence has lost its market value by $1 million. So when you sell it for $3 million, your profit or income is $3 million minus $0 is $3 million. That’s $3 million profit justified by cash transaction.
First of all, deferral is good. If you can double your money every year, $1000 will become $1,024,000.00 after 10 years. If you pay 50% tax on your income at the 10th year your wealth will be $512,000.00. However, if you double your money every year and pay 50% tax on your “income” each year, your wealth will be $57,665.00. So you’re almost 10 times richer when your income is deferred. Then it gets better. You see why knowing the tax laws are more important than knowing how to be productive?
Did you pay 50% times $3 million when you sell your house? No. If governments do that, houses will be so illiquid. Then people won’t buy and sell house due to friction in economy. So governments defer recognition of your income if you buy another real estate that costs more than $3 million. Got so far?
So when did you pay? Don’t know… If you die, the “base” used to measure your income goes up again. Say after your house worth $3 million you die. Then your kids got the house. Ignore inheritance tax, which is also avoidable by the way. Say your kids sell the house for $3 million. How much taxable income your kids are guilty for? $0. Why? Because he sell a house worth $3 million for $3 million. So no profit, no income. No income no tax. Got it? But the base? Well, that’s your income, not your kids income. So your kids are not responsible. Understand?
There are many variations of
these. If you own a company in
Acquiring capital is also a good way. Some capital acquisition can be categorized as expense. Advertising, for example, build brand which is a form of capital but count as expense. Research build knowledge which is also a form of capital, but count as expense, etc.
First you need a corporation. Well, but a corporation is double taxed. No biggy. The double tax means you pay corporate tax and then the corporate pays you dividend on the remains. Then you got dividend and hence that’s a taxable actual cash transaction, which you recognize as income. What about besides owning the company you also work for the company. You know buying paper, mopping floor, and throw out trash. Then you deserve salary, which is like, $1 million a year right? The company will recognizes that $1 million as expense to pay you and hence can deduct that from the income. So you only pay tax once, not twice.
Wait a minute, if you receive $1 million salary, you’ll pay $500,000 income tax. That’s 50% income tax. So how do we pay 0% income tax? Well, not exactly 0% but our two important deductions allow you to get close to 0%. Because it’s easier to get deduction and deferral as a company then as an individual. Our two important deductions would work for the corporation, not individuals. That’s why you end up paying less tax. You should read Robert Kiyosaki’s books to learn more about this actually.
I’ll give you an example. Say your company earns $1 billion
dollar. Say you want $1 million to have “fun.” Let’s just say that you do pay
income tax on this $1 million. Well, actually you may not have to if you learn
more. That’s latter. Say your companies manage to convert that $1 billion
profit into capital acquisition or expense. Your companies can buy raw
materials from your Nevis Company, for example, at more expensive price, hence
shifting profits of your company to a
Say you own 100% of the company. So what’s your standard definition of income? $1 billion dollar. Your property, which is your company, has increased it’s assets by $1 billion dollar. What’s your tax? $500,000.00. So that’s like .05% of your income right? Isn’t that good
It gets better. You can deduct many of your fun expenditure as business expenditure. There goes hotel, women (for inspiration), food, clothing, travel, etc. That should reduce your income tax to even less than .05 %. Good right?
One more trick. Do you know how capital gain tax is computed? What about if the market value of your capital do decrease? Say you buy 2 high risk stocks, stock AAA and stock BBB. Say you expect them to grow twice in market value. Say you spend $1 million for each.
Say after 10 years, stock AAA become $0. Stock BBB becomes $ 4 million. So, what’s your standard meaning “income”? You start of with $2 million and you get $4 million. So you earn $2 million. What’s your taxable income?
Okay, say you “sell” all your AAA stock. Then you also sell a third of your $ BBB stocks. How much cash you have? $1.333 million right? Okay so you earn $2 million, $1.333 million of which is realized. What is your taxable income? If you think it’s $0 you’re on the right track.
You see when you sell your AAA stock you sell it at a lost of $1 million. That $1 million can be used to balance profit you make in BBB. When you sell a third of your BBB stocks you gain $1.333 million, out of which $.333 million are your initial capital. So your capital gain for BBB that is realized is $1 million. So you lost $1 million and make $ 1 million. You make $0. But you have $1.333 million to party as you wish.
Your other profits do not become your taxable income, at least not yet, because you haven’t sold the other two thirds of your BBB stocks right? If you sold all your BBB stocks then your taxable income will indeed be your income, which is $2 million. But it’s not income yet. That’s because you do not plan to spend it yet and if you don’t want to spend it yet, why bother selling it? So you haven’t sold it and hence the tax is deferred. Till when? Till who knows…
It’s not that easy. Governments have many devious rules that are effectively land mine. The worst is “Substance over form” rules. What is a substance over form? Say you go to Mc Donald. Say you buy a burger. Then you paid for the burger. Then you got arrested for robbery. Governments say that you are actually robbing the burgers. Your act of paying for the burger is simply your tactic to circumvent anti robbery laws. So you’re guilty, unless you got good lawyers, of course.
I watched in cringed when a professor told me that companies perform 10-11 lawful acts. Nevertheless, IRS simply declares that the whole steps taken as a whole constitute tax evasion. That’s because the whole steps would not have been taken had the intent was not to avoid the tax. The verdict is guilty even though the CEO can show some actual business purpose beyond tax avoidance behind all those 11 steps. So make sure you have a good lawyer.
What about if you’re as stupid as I am and cannot afford a
lawyer? Well, then you can just don’t pay. There are many people that are doing
that. Some go to jail. However, the probability you’ll go to jail is less than
the probability that you’ll die in
As a foreigner, I will have a hard time to work in US. However, if I invest in US, or any other countries, I’ll be quite happy. Why? Well, I do not have to spend a lot of money to buy B-12 bombers, M-16 machine guns, and F-16 jets to protect my business. Governments do that for you. The saving goes to increase of profit. My benefit of governments’ protection is proportional with the worth of my protected investments. Yet poor workers will have to pay tax to protect my assets. Isn’t live great?
Well, worth tax is effectively a protection fee that will more properly align humans’ interests with productivity as a whole way more than income tax. Income tax will simply motivates people to hire lawyers or study graduate level tax avoidance techniques rather than becoming more productive.
Giving Labors Full Fruit of Their Labor
Nevertheless, I like the idea of giving labors the full fruit of their labor. I mean I still remember the days where my paycheck, as a worker, got seized by tax collectors for the privilege of land owning farmers. How can this thing still happening hundreds of years after the feudal age is beyond me.
That money is gone before I can even touch it. Of course, I don’t touch the rest of the money either because it’s transferred to my bank account, but that’s irrelevant. I am still vengeful till today.
So, okay Marx. Let’s start robbing the privilege rich people. Let’s start with the top 1% of the richest in the world. Let’s see which one we should rob. Ten percents are doctors and lawyers. Well, we can’t rob them comrades. They’re workers. The other ten percents are CEOs. Well, CEOs are workers too. If we rob them we take money away from workers. Now that would defeat the point right?
Jack Welch, for example, improves GE market value by $300 billion, and yet, gets paid less than $2 billions. This is worker exploitation. I’ll tell stockholders to pay their CEO higher. Many of those un-fortunate CEOs are facing frivolous criminal charge over a small amount of money relative to their productivity. It’s so unfair.
Let’s see, 5% are rich due to saving. Wait a minute; we want to rob the rich to give labor the full fruit of its productivity. These prudent workers were saving the fruit of their labor. Robbing them would defeat the point. We got to pass them.
So how do the other 75% of the top 1% richest people in the world get their wealth? Seventy four percents of that 1% earns money through entrepreneurship. Now bear with me. Entrepreneurs are workers too! They have, relatively, huge income to capital ratio, compared to the other occupations. In fact they are the most productive workers among the rest of the population. They mainly borrow someone else money for their business. Me, for example, I was homeless on 1999. Yet I started my internet business. I am a worker too. I serve the capital owning middle class. So I’ll just rob my own money and giving it to my worker’s side.
You know how Aristotle Onasis
created wealth? He went to an engineer in German about a plan to make a tanker.
He said, “I can’t pay you right now, but if we have money, can you build this?”
Then he went to the bank of
Donald Trump spends $1 million to buy
Only 1% of the top 1% richest people in the world earn money through other ways. That includes inheritance, which I also won’t rob, because his dad could have been a very productive worker. This also includes singers, and athletes. Again they are workers too. However, this should teach us something. If we want to get rich, have your own business. Don’t learn to play basket ball. You’ll have higher chance to be successful that way. Nevertheless, this 1% is the stereotype of all rich people. Too many people think that the main way to be rich is through lottery, sports, stardom, or inheritance.
Under capitalism, and only under capitalism, such
Now if you want to find someone privilege, don’t aim at the
top 1%. Aim at the middle class. Minimum wages increase one’s wage, at the
expense of businessmen and unemployment of other workers. That’s privilege.
Tariff protects some jobs and bad business. That’s privilege for bad business
owners. Public school is also privilege. Road are paid by income tax, rather
than gasoline tax. That’s privilege for car ownership. Monogamy is also a
middle class privilege because it’s a
Capital Tax
If income tax is gone, where can government get their money? Wealth tax. You see, wealth is an accumulation of income. So there is far more capital than income. If capital to yearly income ratio is 100 to 1, government will make the same amount of money by taxing capital by 0.5%/year rather than taxing income by 50%. Well, I need more data here.
If government earn their money mainly through capital tax, rather than income tax, will Aristotle be happy? Of course. That’s because the rich are often rich through talent, diligent, and financial acuity. Yes commies, those things matter under capitalism. So the rich have very high income to capital ratio. They’ll pay less capital tax than income tax.
So the poor are happier because they are not penalized for being productive. The rich are happier because they pay less tax. Who are unhappy? No body. The benefit comes from extra productivity.
Income tax penalizes diligent, talent, and financial acuity, which are the main cause of wealth and productivity. Capital tax does that to a much lesser extend. If two people start off with the same amount of capital, they’ll pay of the same amount of tax whether they’re diligent or not. Of course the one that makes more money will accumulate more capital, but at .5%/year, so what? Compare that to 50% income tax per year. If two land owners have an empty land, the one that turn the land into a parking lot will pay the same tax with the one leaving it empty. So productivity is not penalized.
Capitals are not penalized too. Typical rich people can grow their capitals by 20%/year. So what with .5% capital tax/year. Capital tax effectively happens anyway through frivolous lawsuits, inflation, inheritance tax, and riots. That’s because the poor are not benefited enough from the rich capital. So they got envy and try to come up with various ways to get some of those capitals.
Taxing capital will create intensives for everyone to create a climate that’s suitable for investment in his country, to attract capitals. Without frivolous lawsuits, riots, inheritance tax, threat of nationalization, and especially, without income tax, than properly managed capital will earn some additional return than the capital tax. That alone will actually increase, rather than decrease typical return of investments.
A small amount of capital tax is in a sense, climate and protection fee. When Kublai Khan invade the Sung dynasty, the Sung do not have capital tax, because they’re around 700 years before I type this out. In fact, in ancient pre capitalistic age, the poor are the one paying tax for the rich. Really! So what did the Sung do?
The Sung knows that the poor peasants, which are the main ingredients for cannon fodders to fight the horde, do not have sufficient intensives to protect the land of the land lord. So what did the Sung do? Land sharing. The Sung take a portion of landlord’s land giving it to the peasants. Now the peasants have enough property to die for.
The problem is
The same is still happening till today. When a country is
invaded by poverty, government creates a shock therapy catastrophic pogrom
campaign against the financially productive. So productive people go extinct,
flee to other countries, or use their brain to become corruptors. Ever wonder
why
A small amount of capital tax per year will motivate the poor to guard the wealth of the rich. Laws demanded by the majority will then favor capital protection and capital growth to attract foreign investment.
What else we can get rid for the benefit of the poor and the rich?
Social Programs
You see, currently government have power not only to
The rich are drained. The poor are not benefited enough by welfare. So they support the envy because they think the solution is to get more from the rich. The envy accused the rich for the entire problem. The poor kill the rich. The rich flee to other countries, along with their capital. Look at here for more info http://www.huaren.org/focus/id/041899-02.html.
All this can be easily avoided if wealth
C’mon! Can you explain to me how in the earth $10,000/children year worth of education spent on memorizing dates, names, and doing homework, in anyway help anyone to get rich?
I spent 2 days learning for graduate level Math class straight without prerequisite and got A easily. Those home works are useless designed only to slow down students. Most schools graduates simply become other parasites by demanding governments to protect and create jobs for them.
Before I started a business I was homeless so I can save my salary for extra capital. If I can choose, I’d rather sleep in a coffin and put my belongings somewhere in a cheap warehouse. That’ll be a saving of $300/month. What did government do? Government would spend that $300/month to build cheap housing for the poor. Now the poor do not have choice to save that $300/month to catapult themselves to riches. Neither those that support meritocracy nor those who care for the poor will agree with this.
A student in
If governments do not control how re
Why give scholarship to smart people? If we just give cash, smart people can earn themselves scholarship by graduating earlier, hence saving their education fee, which is a scholarship equivalent.
For the same amount of money the rich give, the poor will
benefit the most from the
Actually whether a person get wealthy mainly because he start off richer or because he’s more diligence and in anyway productive is open to a lot of debate. It’s a matter of point of view too. The rich people believe that diligence, talent, and other fair stuffs create wealth. They’re correct from their point of view. Many rich people start of as lower to upper middle class. When you have a reasonable chance to build an empire, than your wealth is mainly caused by your choices.
However, if I look outside my car and I see starving little kids begging for money, I don’t know how I am ever going to be rich if I start of that poor. So the poor is also right, from their point of view, when they say that lack of chances and start of money cause poverty.
On average, because the wealth
Many laws that are designed to re
Many of my Chinese businessmen friends say that capital is not important to start a business. Well, as someone that went homeless to save up capital to buy a decent computer and a link to internet to start my business on 2000, I’d say some start off capitals is very helpful. When I was poor, I’d get rich much faster if government just help me with cash rather than pay for my education.
Many rich people don’t like the idea that people need some minimum basic start off capital to properly dribble their wealth up. That’s because it’s often used as a justification for the rich to pay for those initial capital.
Moreover, there are ways to ensure that everyone have enough start off capital without deviating from meritocracy. Stop linking child support with men’s wealth. Now, wealthier men will breed more kids now that each cost less significant portion of his wealth. This will actually improve the average child support that males pay for their kids. Yes males pay lesser portion of his wealth as child support, however, the richer males support more kids. So each kid will make more because each kid is more likely to have rich dad. No longer will government chase financially productive males from paying child support.
What about if some extremely handsome and sexy males mate with thousands of women, yet do not make any money to support his kids? Then we’ll have plenty of starving kids.
This measure is actually un-necessary because it’s unlikely a woman prefer the poor anyway. But just in case… We can arrange that the one that should be chased by child support agency are those that failed to pay the standard amount of child support irrelevant of wealth or income.
People that fail to get rich productively first before making kids can always get enough money through money for vasectomy program. This should take care the males that are too stupid to productively create wealth, and yet sexy enough to attract many females. This is not eugenic. The poor should get rich first before making kids, for the same reason they should get rich first before buying airplanes.
Of course, due to contraception, the poor can always join whatever orgy they manage to consensually held till they’re rich enough to afford kids. This way, even the most stupid of the humans can enjoy their last moment in the gene pool joyfully.
Really? We can improve humans’ genetic quality without concentration camps and gas chamber? Yes we can. Inconsensual tariffs, quotas, and trade restrictions protect bad business that fail to provide good products. The same way gas chambers, concentration camps, and sex laws against consensual sex protect inferior humans from superior competitors. Inferior genes and inferior people do not compete well under free sex for the same reason inferior products and inferior businesses do not perform well under free market. So the one inferior is the one that come up with bullshits after bullshits to justify kicking out those they themselves feel superior.
Superior people who are able to offer superior offers do not need to resort to excessive force. We can love our enemy and still win. Really? Love our enemy? Well, not too much of course. Murderers and robbers should still die. But we can sit them in comfortable electric chair rather than torturing them to death. For such heinous acts they do, aren’t we compassionate enough?
Definitely we shouldn’t love our enemies more than we love our friends. I cringed when I heard that criminals have criminals right the honest workers would yearn for, like the right to remain silence. I also cringed when I heard the sort of frivolous lawsuits good people get and lenient sentences the bad guy get.
Remember, humans basic instincts are designed for gene pool survival, not wealth. As long as those who positively contribute to the society, judged fairly through free fair market mechanism, outbreed those who do not, the future will be bright even with enough welfare to keep humans live humanely.
Birth Control
So what would be the next to go? Malthusian enforced birth control. The most extreme one are Chinese one child policy. Yes, the world is getting full. I know. But the problem is not whether humans are getting plenty or not. The problems are whether those who make kids are actually able to afford the kids they make. As long as each individual contribute to the society way more than what they need, we’re doing fine.
As a businessmen I can tell you that after a certain point, you’ll get richer way more by concentrating on making more money than saving your expense. I spent only 25% of my income. I’ll go crazy if I have to count every pennies I used to buy food. The same way societies are better of concentrating on being more productive rather than being too thrifty. Only those who are not productive enough need to pay close attention to their spending.
Don’t worry too much about population growth as long as there is enough productivity. When the population keeps going up, the worst that’ll happen is that the land price will go up. When land price go up, rent price go up. When those who know they can’t pay up rent stop producing kids, then population will check it selves. The best? Well, there is always other planet to inhabit if technology makes all that cheap.
Humans are envy. Government sponsored population program tend to reduce gene pool survival of the best and brightest. People want to get rid tough competitors. Hence, many rich smart productive people make few or no kids, while the poor breed 10-20 kids. The poor starve and then demand the rich to pay up. The rich got fed up and choose to become dictators or flee their capital offshore.
In
In US, child support is linked with a man’s wealth. Also
monogamy often forced women to pick relatively poorer males. These obviously
greatly de-motivate productive people from making kids. Worse, it
At the end, the rich make fewer kids than the poor. The rich
countries, whose people manage their country well, like Europe and US has lower
population growth than
While making fewer kids will improve standard of living for poor people, it doesn’t do much to help the rich. To the opposite, when those highly productive make fewer kids, he’ll be less happy and he’ll hurt his society too. How in the earth the world can live well when all the smart and productive people only make fewer kids?
When you have a cow that produce more milk, or a horse that
earn more money, you’ll encourage whichever more productive cattle to breed
more off springs. Yet envy people threat their productive people worse than
cows because they make many laws that’ll
Even criminals need to be proven guilty first before being punished. Yet honest productive individuals have to confess their justly earned money and pay heavy tax on it. Highly productive people that can make kids they can afford are stricken with draconian child support laws. Out of envy, societies threat their most productive individuals worse than cows and criminals.
However, if sex is deregulated, than rich males can attract or hire more women to breed. Rich pretty females can aim for males that are even richer producing richer sons and prettier daughters that’ll attract more females and money respectively. Humans’ genetic quality, measured by capability to serve the market productively through free fair market mechanism, will improve naturally.
A society’s best natural resources are not its oil, or gold, or anything. All those can be earned easily. A society’s best natural resources are their best and brightest individuals that have proven themselves to be useful to his society. Past performances are best predictors of future performances.
Not only that, because humans instincts are designed for gene pool survival, respecting and encouraging those who have performed well in the past will encourage people to be productive. Libertarians are the only system that rewards more productive individuals with gene pool survival.
Remember, once a person have a reasonable start up capital, talent, diligent, choices, and other fair stuffs will decide who gets richer. So any poor people that insist on staying in the gene pool can simply proof his genetic quality by consensually earn enough money and attract females. Otherwise, they can spend their last moment in the gene pool much more happily. At least none of them would starve, unlike millions starving people like we have nowadays.
Now, why do I suggest deregulation of consensual sex? Why not ask government to speed up the process of evolution by actively promoting gene pool survival of the “superior”? For the same reason free markets work much better than authoritarian system. Many reasons. It’ll encourage people to try to look superior rather than productive. People would work hard trying to bully, or kill those they deem inferior rather than proofing it by contributing to the market.
Also the envy effect is huge. Many humans are envy. When some people can force his will to otherwise free market, the product that’s prohibited due to some “inferiority” are often the superior products. Don’t believe me? Check out the tariff and quota department in your country. The products that are prevented from getting in are products that provide better choices for customers. The inferior producers are afraid of superior products so demand government to protect their inferior products or services from better competitors.
The more superior the products, the bigger the effort to
somehow kick the product out. As someone that has been kicked out of many
Humans are envy. When envy influenced government are told to decide what’s good, they’ll call the good bad and the bad good. When government decides who should be out of the gene pool, the envy sides will ensure that the one that gets out are the one that’s tough competitors. In other word, the best genes. It’s not a coincidence that the victims of genocides are often minority groups with brain and money. Also, because humans maximizes their gene pool survival, they tend to hate those who are different. Many that are kicked out are kicked out simply for being different rather than for being truly parasitic.
Now what else we should ask from the poor. I mean if we pay the needy with enough cash, we can ask a lot.
Sex Laws against Consensual Sex, the Biggest Market Distortion
Imagine if a person start many businesses, and then the businesses consume more money than the revenues, will he keep making more businesses?
He probably would, however society will have a legitimate reason to put a cap on that. You see, your business is like your rapport card. If a person screw up his old business, then banks will be less likely to lend him any money. If he doesn’t make money in the last business, he probably doesn’t have enough money to start a new one. The only way he can keep starting a business is if he robs other, and capitalistic societies put a cap on this by prohibiting robbing.
In a sense, this is not a cap. It’s just that if a person wants to do whatever he wants he needs to use his own money, not yours.
What about if you managed your business wisely? Then societies will encourage your actions. Bank will lend you more money. Investors will want to put their money in your management.
In a sense, this is not an encouragement. It’s just that capitalistic rules tend to allow mutually consensual and beneficial arrangements. Its natural investors want to invest their limited and scarce money on the best plan, and you are the best plan.
Making kids are like starting a new business. And starting a new business is like making kids. When a person fails to positively contribute to the society, his genetic materials, at least, have a reputation of consuming more than what he produces. If a bank doesn’t want to lend him money to raise his kids, and he’s not productive enough to support his kids, the only way he can maintain his kids is by robbing you. The other alternative is by robbing his kids from a reasonable humane chance to survive. Either case is not victimless.
Libertarian capitalistic rule will arguably tend to prohibit such acts. Alternatively we can simply let people breed and let their kids starve, and then the societies will blame, who? Who will the society blame if some people make kids he can’t afford or start a business he can’t make productive? Who? Capitalists and capitalism!
In a sense, prohibiting unproductive people from making kids
are not eugenic or authoritarian schemes. We allow poor people to buy airplanes
and mansions, as long as they can
afford it. It’s not a cap. If he wants to make kids, he needs to use his own
money. Not yours. However, for such issues, most mediocre will say, its humans’
right! Check out here
for some humans’ right
Judges, for example, recognized the interest of third parties, such as the child (and tax payer) by declaring that some child support agreement is unenforceable. Even though the agreement is mutually consensual, judges declare the agreements unenforceable because it in-consensually affects some third parties, namely the kids. Hence, it is a natural prediction then that judges should declare mutually consensual conceiving as illegal for in-consensually hurting some third parties, namely the kids being born into poverty.
Yet societies put no cap on the poor making kids. Ghetto kids grow at a rate of 5 per generation. Not that I hate ghetto kids, but why can’t those people get rich first before making kids? Give them welfare. Fine… Just don’t grow in numbers.
However, even without such caps, that obviously require some governments, we’ll do fine. We’ll do fine if governments are consistently lazy.
Remember, for males, rich=sexy. Now, what about if you productively make a lot of money and attract women? Then libertarian rules will encourage your gene pool survival. Libertarian is the only ideologies that properly align productivity to gene pool survival. With economic freedom, the productive will be rich. Rich equal sexy for males. Under free sex, sexier males produce more kids. This is the strongest alignment between productivity and motivation. A Liberal may oppose economic freedom, making ghetto studs sexy for his capability of getting welfare money. A Capitalist can also be a right wing preventing rich males from being a stud with anti prostitution laws.
Only libertarian that support both economic and personal freedom properly align wealth to productivity. Of course, libertarians are the smartest sexiest minorities, and hence hated by the parasites and the envy. Which is why we need ally…? Starvie? You there?
In a sense this is not an encouragement. Libertarian rules tend to allow all mutually beneficial and consensual arrangements. It’s natural that women would want to invest their scarce eggs on the best plan. Your DNA, contained in your sperm, is the best plan for making kids for her.
Yet societies put very tight caps on this. Child support
laws link a man’s child support to a man’s wealth. This limits the number of
children a man can make. Also marriage is the only legal prostitution and has to
be monogamy. Therefore, sexy rich smart males will have to
Social Justice
We can demand government to stop mitigating
Lao Tze says, those who govern best don’t hold weapon. Those who hold weapon well don’t decide war terms. Those who decide rules of engagement well do not wage war. Those who wage war well do not lose. And those who lose well don’t vanish. As best as we can, we should always use the most peaceful and natural solutions to our problem. That is the trend of capitalism.
Militaristically enforced equality often by government can
reduce
Equality of wealth would often come naturally as a result of equality of innate ability and choices. Yes, buddy, freedoms do not cause inequality of wealth. Freedoms tend to mitigate it fairly while oppressions tend to exaggerate it. Surprised?
Think it this way, say some workers are earning more money in one industry than in other industry, and then workers would move from the low paying industry to high paying industry right? At the end, if everyone is equally capable, diligent, and starting of condition is the same, people would make the same amount of money, roughly.
Say businessmen make more money than workers, than workers will turn into businessmen and via versa. After all, all businessmen are simply workers that work for the market straight. All workers are actually businessmen too in a sense that they’re buying and selling some thing, namely their service.
Now, people are not equally capable. Again freedom solves
that. Those who are more capable to serve the market will get richer. Then
those who are richer produce more offspring. Then they
Nothing can be done with
What about
However, it’s not a perfect solution. Correctly deciding how much should be taken by one person is something not even the private sectors can do well. It’s non consensual. It’s beyond the market. It’s beyond the check and balance natural supply and demand stuff, though I would love to learn if there is a better model for that.
Militaristically enforced justice, often by government, can be good. So I am not going to say no completely to this solution. It’s good. However, just like anything requiring government, it’ll only work well on small scales. Count on it too much and it tends to move to the opposite. Good governments are small government.
What do the productive can do to handle past unfair wealth? Now this is not a fair solution to the victims of unfair condition. But capitalism is still a great solution to fix it. Not a perfect one, not a perfectly just one, but still very good. I mean, compare the wealth in productive industry, like trading, to say, “stealing” industry.
Even though a robber can steal $5,000 from you, chance is you’ll way out earn those robbers by 1000 to 1. Most of the money will eventually goes to the good guy. Yes, in a perfect world, you’ll still get that $5,000 back from the robber. We don’t live in a perfectly fair world, but capitalism is quite good.
I know it’s not good enough. However, efforts to improve upon this, especially those requiring bigger government, can only go so far, usually, for wrongs done recently. After that, if we push justice too far, the problems often tend to get worse rather than better. Governments that I know are usually more lenient toward “real” bad guys like thieves then toward consensual criminals like porn or drug. Counting on more government for meritocracy justice will lead to more punishment to the innocent.
The same happen on counting on more government for equality
often end up worse. Just ask countries that tried Karl Marx’ solution of
forceful shock therapy land sharing to mitigate past privileges of the nobles.
Without that plan, capitalism would automagically re
Yet, Karl Marx suggested catastrophic land seizure.
Intensives to be productive got so much less. Without capability to rob richer
countries,
The commies’ “purpose” of land sharing is to re
Justice delayed is justice denied. It’s sad. It’s unfair. But it’s true. Sometimes, we just have to let it go in exchange of lesser government
The second case is in the case of fair starting condition. Allright allright, Bill Gates win
fair and square. However, how can your kid start of with the same inheritance
with Bill’s kids? Ask and allow Bill to plug more chickz
and make more kids. Bill will be very happy. Also his wealth is split to more
kids. Now, that’ll re
That means women will have a high market value that many males will not be able to afford hiring a woman for reproduction. I suppose hiring women for occasional consensual sex will still be cheap though. Well, as long as there is still poverty in this world, I think it’s a good thing. It’ll ensure all kids have rich smart dad. That’s one thing for sure.
In fact, the balancing power of freedom goes even further. How can the Jews sue the Europeans for past wrong and past loss of gene pool survival? Well, too tough I guess. It’ll be too complicated to sue somebody for the wrongs done for thousands of years ago. What’s gone is, unfortunately, gone. However, just like smarter people can still out earn robbers by large scales even if he doesn’t’ retaliate, under capitalism, the more capable can easily regain unfair lost. The more capable can earn more money. After earning more money, they produce more kids.
There goes lost gene pool territory. Of course, once a group
of smarter people produce more kids, their relative smartness tends to
It doesn’t stop there. Say the world need 40% engineers and 60% poets. The two, as we know, require a different talent. Say, at that composition, the engineers and the poets will make the same amount of money. Say we have too many engineers. Then what? The market will take care of it. The poets will make more money; produce more kids, till their ratio is 60% in the world’s population. Isn’t freedom our best ticket to equality?
Nations as Business
So how do we combine everything out there into a simple solution?
What about if governments are managed like businesses? What does that mean?
Well, there are many similarities between corporation and nations. The citizens are like the stock holders. The presidents are the CEOs. The legislatives are like the board of directors. So does the name the only thing that changed?
In businesses, stock holders have intensive to ensure that companies expenditures are minimized if all else the same. Moreover, stock holders prefer that the companies spend money as efficiently as possible. So if the revenue and other benefits for stockholders are the same anyway, stock holders will have intensive that the companies minimize expenditures.
That’s not the case for governments. So many citizens want their government to spend more.
Why the difference?
Well, say you have a choice between getting $5 and an apple. Would you rather choose the $5 or the apple? Well it depends on how well you like apple. If you don’t like apple then of course you prefer the cash. If you like apple then you may still prefer the cash because that $5 can get you something you like even more than apple.
However, if you know that an apple can be cost efficiently produced at $1 you wouldn’t choose the apple irrelevant of your preferences for apple. Why? Because if an apple can be cost efficiently produced at $1, somebody must have made that apple and sell it for $1.1. So the market price for apple can’t possibly be $5. Hence, irrelevant of your preferences for apple, you would pick the cash.
What about if your choice is between getting an apple and getting nothing? Of course you’ll pick the apple even if you prefer the apple just a little bit.
The first kind of choice is the kind of choice faced by stock holders. No company will be popular in stock market by saying, “We’re going to spend $5 to buy apple and give it to our stock holders.” Stockholders know that if the companies do not spend $5 to buy that apple, that $5 will either go as cash dividend or increase stock price. Moreover, unless the companies specialize in producing apple in a way that the company can produce apple below the market price, no stock holders would agree to the buy apple transaction.
The second choice is the kind of choice faced by citizen. Say, a social democrat politicians say that governments are going to buy apple but will tax more. For the poor that pay no tax anyway, the choice is not between getting apple or cash. The choice is between getting apple or not. Of course, many citizens will prefer to choose more governments’ spending for apple especially those who tend to get more than pay more, such as the poor.
Taxing based on usage will minimize this effect, but we know that’s not the most common form of taxation scheme and even then still have improper alignment problems, like the natural monopoly cases I explained earlier.
However, if governments give two choices, get dividend or social programs, the result is different. If, for the same government income, governments don’t spend money for public education, health care, and apples, the money goes to either citizens’ dividend, then many will pick the cash and hence reducing governments’ spending.
The only way citizens might prefer the governments to spend money is when the governments can indeed produce something more efficiently than the market, like security, or some roads. Even then, most citizens will simply prefer the cash.
Now watch carefully, what about if most of the surplus don’t go to dividend but to governments’ cash reserve, will citizens like that too? If citizens get dividend, then citizenship, like stocks, has market value! Putting money in governments’ reserve will increase citizenships’ market value. So citizens will then prefer to have less governments spending.
So what? Citizenships are illiquid, unlike stocks. So what’s the point of having huge citizenship’s value? While the citizenships it self is illiquid, however right attached to citizenship can be liquid. Voting right is an example. Why argue and argue which one is right? Let a market like mechanism decide what decisions a country should make.
Citizenships carry a right to inherit
citizenships, which can be liquid too. Well, you won’t keep your citizenship
forever do you? No body lives forever. You have to inherit your citizenship to
your kid. Currently, citizenships do have market value. People are wiling to
pay to live in
Now, say reproduction is asexual. Say we allow every human to inherit their citizenship to one kid. Now, poor male can sell that inheritance right to rich male for the market value price. Rich males that want to make more kids will have to buy the right to inherit citizenship somewhere. Hence, the poor can make more money by producing fewer kids! If the poor is indeed “worthy” he can use that money to start a business and build empire and then afford to buy citizenships for the kid.
It’s even better that our reproductive system happen to be sexual. So a couple can have one kid by cheating and get their gene pool survival cut by half. So if a person produces a kid while failing to provide the kid significant financial support, we can vasectomies daddy and perform tubectomy on mom and then support the kids. Their kind will be less and less anyway.
Unfortunately, the two procedures are not very reversible. If they are reversible, then those couple can still make kids once they’re richer. However, it’s not a big problem. Providing one kid without being able to afford the kid is producing one kid too many already.
Meritocracy means that the way, and the only
way, to get more money or other benefits are to serve others first in a way
that others are willing to pay for the service. Currently, governments’
dividend come in the form of social programs where the benefits a family
receive is an increasing function of the number of kids the family have. If
governments’ spend $10,000 per kid year for public school, for example, than
couples that make one more kid will get $10,000 more each year without necessarily
being more productive to society and still get free citizenship. This will
create a market
With a better alignment, the rich and smart will make more kids, and the poor will have higher standard of living.
Now, that should take care the efficiency of governments’ spending. With this kind of arrangement, governments’ efficiency will move closer to the market’s efficiency. With these arrangements, we probably can play around with some natural monopoly issue, though I still doubt that.
What about with efficiency of governments’
income? Well, nations have to compete with other nations for foreign
investments, attracting smart productive people, and military, etc. right? The
people will then have intensive to raise governments’ income in way that
So we have taken care of the efficiency in
governments’ spending, and earning. How do we ensure that governments do not
rob the productive too much? Inter society competition. Governments that rob
the productive too much will have their productive people and capital fleeing
to other countries. That’s as far freedom as I can see, and definitely more
than what we have right now. It’s not a coincidence that capitalism start of in
a continent with lots of warring countries like
People that choose to manage their countries well will get richer. Then they can attract or pay women to come from other countries. Their gene pool survival will increase. They will also be able to buy other countries’ territories. In fact, many people would want to join better managed countries. Perhaps poor countries will voluntarily join better countries. Hence, the better managed countries get more and more territory until UN institute some anti monopoly laws to break up large countries I guess. How’s that for an alternative to war?
Other Usage of Freedom
There are still many usage of freedom. The most important one are the elimination of costly unproductive prejudice.
When a person runs other people’s life, they lead other’s life to their demise, because many humans are envy and evil.
People do not have honest intensives to be honest in running others’ life. If you let me run your life, I will say that your best choices are to give all your money to me and work for me as my slave. Then I’ll say it’s what’s good for you too. Then I’ll say it’s so good if you choose otherwise it must be in-consensual. Then I’ll censor any information that suggest otherwise as heresy, deceiving, immoral, or offensive.
You can argue and argue, correctly, obviously, that I am wrong. But what for? It is to my best interest to uphold the prejudice that serves my interest. Why do I have to be correct about the truth?
However, when a person only has control of his own life, the only way he’ll get ahead is by improving himself. Under capitalism, the main way to improve your self is to get paid helping others. This creates intensives for people to be honest on understanding others’ and his own motives.
Prejudices are the most costly expenditures. Prejudices are luxury we can’t afford. If we eliminate prejudices, we can afford humanitarian issues still with plenty intensive to be productive.
Women’s Choice
I’ll give you an example how humans are very stupid when
they decide what’s best for others. In
I guess, males in
Isn’t it a coincidence that protection against consensual choice for women correlates negatively with males’ wealth and desirability? Countries where the males are “sexy = rich” have far more relaxed sex laws.
Get the book I recommend in Figure 1 and Figure 2 that the real reason is to limit women’s choices. That is, to encourage women to pick less desirable males and to allow governments to heavily control sexual selection toward the more favorable groups. Yet those who have intensives to maintain the prejudice will simply defend it and vote in favor of it, no matter how wrong they are. Humans’ desire to profit is higher than humans’ desire for truth.
So how do we fix that? Appealing to humans’ selfish interest. Why not invite those oppressed women to work at massage parlors in freer country. Women, like all humans, will maximize their interest. If they’re better off becoming prostitutes here, they’ll move. Soon countries that oppress women will run out of women. Then they’ll be out of the gene pool. Then we’ll buy their land. It’s more humane than war isn’t it?
Palestinian War
The Jews and Palestinians have a lot of potential profit. Being an oppressed minority everywhere else, the Jews tend to be rich capitalists. Those who are politically weak often make money by being very productive.
It’s about time they continue that good tradition by making even more money. Jewish capitalists can hire Palestinians workers. Palestinians can ask for a lot of Jewish’s private investments to develop their country.
Even countries that have more reasonable reasons to kill
each other, like
So why do the Jews and Palestinians kill each other?
The Palestinians are heavily restricted by curfews. This
prevents Palestinians workers to work for the Jewish capitalists. It also
prevents capitalists to invest in
The Palestinian warmongers say that the Jews are oppressing the Palestinians and hence, have to be retaliated. But how do we know that the real reason is not to uphold their own religious agenda? The people are easier to unite, indoctrinated, and controlled when there is a common enemy. Arafat was pretty rich when he died.
The democratic Jews are ruled by their middle class. Jewish warmongers say that the curfews are necessary to prevent Palestinians from committing suicide bombers. However, the numbers of suicide bombers victims are less than the numbers of traffic accident. How do we know that it’s not just another middle class excuse to avoid competition with cheaper Palestinian workers?
There is a libertarian solution for that. Pick a small region, allow Palestinians and Jewish to interact freely. Now every Jews can decide for themselves whether the small increase risk of getting killed by a suicide bomber worth the extra profit made by hiring and trading with the Palestinians workers and businessmen. The Palestinians can decide whether it is more profitable to work for the Jews or not. Palestinian women can also decide whether becoming a mistress for richer Jewish males is a better choice or not.
Soon, there’ll be a huge demand to get that small region bigger.
Win Win solutions convey correct signals. If you earn profit by screwing others, you signal, "I am a pain in the ass, kill me." Sometimes that's unavoidable, which is the case when we face envy people. Most of the time, there is a better way. If you profit others by screwing your self, you signal, "Keep killing me, it's working."
When you aim for win win, you win twice. It's not to the other sides' interest to kill you. It also signals that it is to their advantage of being profitable to you.
Religious interpretation
Individuals are the best judge of correct religious interpretation. After all, if you believe in God, the one that’s going to go to hell or heaven based on your interpretation will be you. Hence, it is to your best interest to correctly interpret what ever favorite doctrines you like.
If I decide what the correct interpretation of the state religion is, I will say that all pretty females should only mate with me. The other males can go fuck themselves and jerk off. All other form of sexual act is immoral. I’ll say any opinion that opposes that as demeaning for women, offensive, heretical, wrong, and immoral and must be censored.
The same goes where anyone else decides and enforces some form of state religion.
For example, if I read the bible, from back to forth, the only condemnation against adultery can be reasonably interpreted only against acts that would not have existed if marriages don’t exist.
For example, women are stoned to death if she has sex with a male while being married to another. If there is no marriage, then no one gets stoned.
A woman can get death penalty if she is found out not a virgin during her marriage. Again no marriage, no problem.
Jesus prohibits divorce and remarriage. No marriage, no divorce.
So, as a very pious Christian, I would propose that all governments should abolish marriage institution and encourage free sex. This will reduce plenty of sin.
After all, the main benefits of marriage are the determination of fatherhood. Nowadays, it can be done via blood tests anyway.
Don’t believe me? Determination of fatherhood has a very
high economic value because it allows
Say you’re Abraham. Say you have a son Isaac. You say to your self, “Isaac, must be my son.” Why? Well, he’s a son of Sarai (your wife). Sarai don’t fuck around with other males. Why? Well, if she does that she’ll be bukkaked to death in towns’ square. Such events will be shown world wide and that means I must have watched. It’s not worth the risk. After all, I am a rich alpha male. Of course she likes my cock more.
Now that Isaac is my son, I can just concentrate making a lot of money and inherits my wealth to Isaac. Then Isaac, or Jacob (my future grand child) will be a stud. Then I’ll survive really well in the gene pool.
In fact, I’d rather inherits most of my wealth to Isaac rather than Hagar’s son (your concubine). Hagar is just a concubine. She’s not bounded to fuck only me. Also Ismael seems to be smarter than Isaac. So chance is, Ismael can be the son of Moses, Aaron, Ramses, Einstein, Zhuge Liang, Jim Thio, Takashi, or other people whose genes will compete latter with my gene pool presence.
Now, while I am busy making money watching the sheep commodity market, who’s going to raise Isaac? I suppose I can hire a baby sitter. But baby sitters are expensive. Even when slavery is legal on my time, I’d rather not just trust anybody for these delicate jobs. What about if my babies got kidnapped and the kidnappers demand ransoms?
Ah, Sarai has some form of genetic intensives to take care of Isaac. After all she’s his parent too. Also because she has relatively less talents, skills, and interests in management, math, logic, and stuff, her economic cost is less than mine. It may have a lot to do with her gender though of course I wouldn’t presume it so not to offend the mighty radical feminist amazons in the next village.
If Sarai take care of the kid, I can then concentrate on making more money and aiming for more other hot chickz like Keturah (other concubines).
Now, Keturah’s genetic quality doesn’t seem to be as high as Sarai, so I’ll bet most of my inheritance money to Isaac.
For Sarai, fatherhood determination serves her interest too. She would say to her self the following. Well, I have to rule out having sex with Ricky Martin, Leonardo de Caprio, and many others. That’s a minus. However, Abraham pays me a lot. Also Abraham is rich=sexy anyway. I got to take care all the kids being made, but it serves my gene pool survival too anyway.
Alternatively, I can whore my self, I suppose. However,
without fatherhood determination, the other males will pay much less and I
don’t get the pension plans when I grow old. I’ll earn more money through
marriage rather than through more standard prostitution. Not only that, I want
to avoid venereal
So Sarai chose to marry Abraham. You see, it’s a win win solution.
Nowadays, with blood tests, Abraham, Sarai, Hagar, Keturah, Isaac, Jacob, will all agree. Free sex with blood test is the way to go. Abraham can knock more chickz up and support only kids that happen to be his. It’s far more efficient. All the babes can try out more cocks. Everybody will prefer the new system except the lesser cocks.
Of course, unlike marriage, free sex is unregulated. So lesser cocks don’t get any. Obviously those lesser cocks are nowadays the ruling class due to democracy. Hence, they decide that people have to have sex first before marriage, and marriage has to be monogamy.
Nowadays, there are far more pressures for women to get married than pressures for women to be prostitutes. Yet people often argue that the latter is always inconsensual. Envy people are pretty twisted right?
No matter how twisted their argument is, they’ll simply vote
in favor of their gene pool survival. Because males have very little genetic
That’s because in proposing a certain political agenda, humans tend to maximize the interest of those similar to them rather than his individual interest. Doing so will get them more support.
It’s not very strange. Some acts can reasonably be done more
efficiently collectively. If we invest one GI to
That’s the same mechanism why many women choose to oppose individual freedom and demand protection from consensual offers.
How do we solve this? Again buy votes from the needy to allow free sex. If women that prefer higher quality males will simply choose the higher quality males, then it’ll be obvious what serves her interest.
If there is any small country that deregulates sex, that
country will be filled with rich males and pretty females. Soon, many would
want that country to get bigger. Of course, the ruling class in many countries
will try to destroy it. But some like
Summary
Basically, I use some common sense widely used by all proponents of capitalism. If we want to maximize productivity as a whole then each individual should choose the most productive choice. For that to happen, the most profitable choice for an individual should be close with what maximizes productivity as a whole.
Any laws that prohibit individuals from maximizing productivity as a whole will create a strategy that cannot be an optimum solution. Hence, there is an opportunity to increase productivity further.
For example, if it costs $20 to make a shirt in your country and it costs $1 to make the same shirt in other countries, common sense would dictate that for every shirt made in your country, some $19 is gone with the wind. Now, opponents would argue that eliminating tariffs and quotas will create jobs and hence benefit some people.
However, there has to be away to regain that lost $19 per
shirt and then re-
Hence, my ideas resolve around recognizing those lose pie and then try to retrieve it in ways that profit more people.
Re
Huge lost happen because governments decide how the
I do not count satisfying envy as productivity. Even though preventing people from getting rich is useful for some mediocre because it helps them attract female I still count it as a lost. The lost wealth is gone with the wind. The numbers of females do not increase and only merely shift from the rich to the poor where the woman would have higher economic value for the former. The female herself is hurt because she ends up have to settle for poorer males.
Hence, I believe huge pie can be regained if laws that are
envy motivated are correctly pin pointed and the envy effect
Nevertheless, my ideas should still benefit envy people. Evolution theory teaches us that envy roots in desire to get women. If sex and immigration is deregulated, then males in rich countries can easily import girlfriends from poorer countries. Currently there are 30% British males that never have girl friend. The number will get reduce due to my schemes. I am sure the KKK and Nazis will stop hating the Jews once they can get some African chickz. Am I missing something here? Women sometimes aim for quantity to ensuring there are enough females for everyone.
Of course, rich males will spend less money for women now they can get larger number of females for the same cost. Some women would hate that, but like envy, I do not take into account this factor as a pie.
Human’s basic instincts are designed for gene pool survival, not wealth. So far, my ideas of helping the poor constitute of the rich paying the same or less money and yet the poor got profited more due to larger efficiency. However, most rich people are better off even if they pay more money but survive more in the gene pool. What shall profit a man if he’s as rich as Bill Gates yet have no kids?
If Bill Gates joins orgies with many hot chickz, Bill will be happier even if he lost 50% of his wealth paying the poor for “protection fee.” Societies will be profited to if people like Bill survive in the gene pool.
Now of course, this is not perfect. Some guys may be rich, and gay. Hence, he’s not benefited with capital tax for free sex arrangement. I am sure you can figure out how to be fair for them.
The African are gaining in number, yet live poorly. The European is rich, yet has negative population growth. Both will be profited if African gets more cash and Europeans make more kids.
And finally I no longer hate politicians. By writing this, I am one my self now. You see, politicians often get rich through screwing others. However, they do often create more harmony among the people they lead. They’re overpaid and abusive for the same reasons many businessmen are overpaid: lack of competitors.
Many libertarian businessmen just know how to make money productively without some practical realization on how to make the world reward the productive. Then they bitch when governments or the mob take their money. Though I am sympathetic to any unfairly oppressed people, I would still blame them for failing to balance their justly earned wealth with political influence and power. Got some public relation campaign or something. Email me at webmaster@genepoolsurvivalguide.com for this common interest.