Why Paying for Sex is better than marriage

Saying that married couples have richer children doesn’t mean that making your relationship official actually increases the wealth of your children.

In the same way, saying that those who marry in blockchain have richer children doesn’t mean that marrying at blockchain is good for children.

I think the most robust union is the one that can be split into many small transactions where each side has an incentive to go again. Also, clear explicit contracts tend to be more stable.

Modern marriage institutions violate those principles. Instead of splitting contracts into smaller pieces, modern marriage is effectively one huge deals.

The deal itself is not explicit. Different states and countries have different marital rules. Some important rules are no fault divorce. However, those rules are not written anyone can divorce their spouse for any reason or in any clear way. The legal term is an irreconcilable difference.

Most nonlawyers do not know that irreconcilable differences means no-fault divorce.

I think Trump is Wrong about Trade Imbalance

Trump is actually wrong when he complains about trade imbalance. My trade imbalance with my baby sitter is in favor of my maid. It doesn’t mean that I am not profited by my baby sitter.

I probably receive benefit from my maid than my maid receives benefit from me. I can’t imagine my self changing diapers or taking care of my baby all the time. I got money to make and I wanna have fun.

The Chinese probably make $100 for every iPhone and Apple, an American company makes $1000 and the iPhone customer is probably $1500 happier. However, in Trump’s mind, we have a trade imbalance because iPhone from China is being sold in US for $1k

I think this is one of a few area I do not agree with Trump.

Redistribution of Wealth

If you really want redistribution of wealth, you should tax wealth or charge protection fee, not income. I am not saying you should. But if you want, you may want to consider this.

If you tax income you will punish those who are more diligent. Many of which are actually poor. Tax wealth based on actual wealth the government protects. Land tax, for example.

Doesn’t have to be a lot. .5% is enough. Any rich guy can have more return than that. They declare their wealth and if some foreign country seizes that money, you send the troops. Fair deals.

Why we should lower minimum wage

People talk about how big corporations can afford minimum wage. What about small businesses? Imagine me or you being a teenager.

We either start our own business, maybe selling hot dog, maybe being self entrepreneur. Or we can work for other people, competing in jobs market. Obviously, guys like me prefer to be a businessman than a worker.

However, that depends on salary. If salary is high, I wanna be workers. If salary is low, not only the opportunity costs of taking risks and start my own business is lower.

Not only that, lower minimum wage means I can see that I can expand my business more quickly. That means more jobs. Of course, the majority of people are workers and they just vote to increase their salary. How are you, or we or anyone can solve this market not “closing”.

But that means the market is not closing. There will be more demand for jobs than supply. Perhaps a better way to see it is there will be more supply of work than buyers.

So, in US, and in any country, you got a bunch of rules. Some locals want to get hired first. You need citizenship. You need to have a certain skin color. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. There is this diversity and then racism and bigger governments. Things just get complicated and I am sick and fucking tired to run through those hoops.

That’s beyond me.

It’s far easier for me to start an internet marketing biz in Indonesia. At least, it’s an easy choice. Working for other people means very low salary. So, it’s a very easy choice to me when I choose to be a businessman or a worker. Basically, I chose to be either wealthy or dead.

Why Sexual Norms

I read this 20 years ago. It makes me question everyone and societies’ norms on anything. Notice how what the church is obsessed 1000 years ago is similar to what both the left and the right are obsessed with now.

The question is. Would you want someone that wants to prevent you from having biological heirs to run your life? I mean, those are effectively genocide against you there. If so, go ahead, get married, officially.

The Church’s obsessions with sexual matters were very different …. In all three cases the Church seems to have been trying to prevent lords from siring legitimate heirs. If a man obeyed the doctrines of the Church in the year 1100, he could not divorce a barren wife, he certainly could not remarry while she lived, and he could not adopt an heir. His wife could not give her baby daughter to a wet nurse and be ready to bear another in the hope of its being a son, and he could not make love to his wife “for three weeks at Easter, four weeks at Christmas, and one to seven weeks at Pentecost; plus Sundays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays—days for penance or sermons; plus miscellaneous feast days.” He also could not bear a legitimate heir by any woman closer than a seventh cousin—which excluded most noble women within three hundred miles. It all adds up to a sustained attack by the Church on the siring of heirs, and “it was not until the Church started to fill up with the younger brothers of men of state that the struggle over inheritance—over marriage—between them began.” Individuals in the Church (disinherited younger sons) were manipulating sexual mores to increase the Church’s own wealth or even regain property and titles for themselves. Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, following his break with Rome, which followed Rome’s disapproval of his divorcing the sonless Catherine of Aragon, is a sort of parable for the whole history of Church-state relations.

Ridley, Matt. The Red Queen (p. 241). Harper Perennial. Kindle Edition

What Can We Agree?

Maybe I should just concentrate on what we agree on.

I agree that men want fertile girls and assurance of paternity. I totally agree. The first one is actually instinctive. Men like young women (legal age, I suppose). So young women 18-23 has higher sexual market value.

Should men get married?

If I live 200 years ago, I would. That’s how to ensure paternity in ancient time.

Now, we have paternity tests. Marriage institution has also changed. Adultery is legal and in many western states, husbands are responsible for the child even if it’s not his.

A marriage institution is like any government infested institution. It’s like education. It gets worse and more expensive while technology is getting cheaper and more reliable.

What about poverty? I too want to eliminate or reduce poverty.

I just don’t think redistribution of wealth as the way to go. Why took money from smart people and giving it to those who obviously can’t manage it?

Encouraging women to get married is also not a solution. Government messes up in education and healthcare and now you want the government to regulate sexual relationship?

The solution is less government, not more. Most smart pretty girls prefer the rich anyway. Let them whore themselves out to rich millionaires. The rich millionaires will have more biological heirs. Poverty will plummet in one generation.

What else can we agree on?

That poor kids have less chance to get rich? That women, under free market, are much less capable to make money than men? I mean they got to get pregnant for every baby make. How’s that work for interrupting career? That women can earn more money by being sex objects than doing mens’ job? That men tend to think that women are sex objects?
I agree with all those. I agree on fact.

I do not see those as problems to be fixed. I see that as natural order that should be embraced.
Anything else we agree?

What we Agree

Maybe I should just concentrate on what we agree on.

I agree that men want fertile girls and assurance of paternity. I totally agree. The first one is actually instinctive. Men like young women (legal age, I suppose). So young women 18-23 has higher sexual market value.

Should men get married?

If I live 200 years ago, I would. That’s how to ensure paternity in ancient time.

Now, we have paternity tests. Marriage institution has also changed. Adultery is legal and in many western states, husbands are responsible for the child even if it’s not his.

A marriage institution is like any government infested institution. It’s like education. It gets worse and more expensive while technology is getting cheaper and more reliable.

Do men like whores? You know to form a family?

It depends. I wouldn’t marry a whore. That being said, I wouldn’t marry anyone. Would I form a family with whore or sex workers, or stripper, or porn star? No problem.

What about if she’s not loyal? There is financial incentive for that. I don’t mind sharing if that means sharing her costs with another rich friend. Most of the time, it’s the girl that doesn’t want to be shared.

What about paternity certainty? There is paternity tests. Can’t fool that.

Of course, I wouldn’t marry a whore. I won’t because I hate marriage. Other men won’t because by getting married you open issues I don’t have.

What about if she doesn’t love you? What about if she leave you with half or all of your money? What about if she makes you responsible for kids that’s not yours?

By keeping everything transactional and by avoiding marriage, I will never have those issues.

Internet Companies are Stronger than Nation States

I wonder why a bakery must cook cakes for gay but twitter doesn’t have to put up with conservative speech?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

At the end, the bakery won on a split decision made by Colorado supreme court. However, that’s after lots and lots of court time and lots and lots of trial.

And this is why I rarely do offline business. There is no way I can keep up with all the crazy rules the government put.

So why the state doesn’t force twitter to accept conservative chat? And this is interesting. The bakery has to obey his state law. Why? Because the bakery is in the state. If state A, say Georgia or something liberal, say you got to bake cake for gays, then the bakery has to comply or move to another state. But moving to another state is a big thing for the bakery.

Twitter doesn’t have to do so. A state where twitter is located can say you got to tolerate conservative chat and twitter will simply relocate to timbuktu, seyschelles, Ireland, that doesnt’ have that issue. Twitter can relocate anywhere, not just another state, but also to another country. Internet business is like flying. Offline business is like driving.

When you drive, you got to watch the road. Governments love to put IUD and land mines on the road and you got to know it all. Every offline business needs a lot of lawyer because a simple case of cooking a cake could mean, let’s see, 100 Amicus Briefs. That’s beyond the comprehension of a mere cake cheff.

Who would know whether not baking a cake can mean breaking the law and bankruptcy? Nobody. Even the supreme court has split opinions. Obeying the law is impractical if the law is so vague and unclear.

So it’s not about right and wrong. It’s about the natural huge bargaining position internet companies have. And I love internet companies, I am an internet marketer my self.

That’s precisely why I am in internet marketing. Few can regulate us. Don’t get me wrong. I am actually sympathetic to many conservative ideas that supports free market, that for some reason, is classified as hate speech by those tech companies.

However, the fact on the table is, the tech companies are simply more powerful than nation states. Why internet and technology companies can grow so big?

Because they’re figuratively speaking, above the laws. They fly so high they are out of range of IUD and land mines.

I agree with the left on many facts

I actually agree with the left on many facts. I just disagree on objectives. What they think is oppression, I think is justice.

Poor people can’t afford food and healthcare?

That’s not a problem on my book. So get rich. Get filthy rich. Get rich first before breeding. Problems solved. Fail to serve the market, then die.

That’s justice to me. That’s not a problem at all.

Women left by their husband or boyfriend after getting pregnant? Well. Why does the girl choose a mate based on love or marriage?

Imagine you’re selling widget. Instead of demanding money out of your widget you just choose someone that you fall in love with and give your widget and get nothing. Or make a complex contract with no fault divorce rules. Then what?

Just make a deal with some millionaires of child support amount. Behind every poor kid, there is a woman that does not think like a capitalist.

Poverty is the market way of punishing women that don’t think like whore.

Oh ya, the right is not helping either. They prohibit abortion, don’t subsidize contraception, and advocate abstinence instead of just sterilization. They also promote disgusting government infected marriage.

So yea. I am a centrist I guess.