Good News on What to Do

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Is Stealing Part of the Game

Say I think stealing is wrong. That means I hate thieves. However, it doesn’t go far. I hate thieves, so what? They steal my money anyway. Not like thieves live or die based on whether I hate them.

Now, imagine, instead of thinking that stealing is wrong, I think stealing is part of the game.

Then there is much more that I can do. I know that thieves are unlikely to steal or rob in save regions or in the crowded areas. So I shouldn’t walk alone in an alley.

It seems that thinking that stealing is part of the game is more useful than thinking that theft is wrong.

By the same reasoning, what about, if, for a while only, we think genocide, abortion, socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, welfare, right-wingers, libtardism, not as something that’s “right” or “wrong” but something that’s “part of the game.”

Some people promote that, perhaps because that’s what’s their winning strategy. So what’s our winning strategy?

Notice reciprocity is not an optimal solution. Knowing that stealing is part of the game doesn’t mean because of that, I should steal too. I have different talent sets with those thieves. It is toward my best interests, for example, to ask for governments to shot down thieves, promote 3 strikes you’re out laws, or give free contraception/abortion than to say, legalize stealing.

However, I can understand that other people obviously have different agenda and hence have different winning strategies than I am.

Would Legalizing Abortion Cause Genocide?

We often hear that right? This is the one argument against abortion that makes any sense. Not that I agree, but this is the only thing worth addressing.

The idea is we got to presume that all humans life are equal. If we don’t, then we’ll start getting it wrong all the way, and some smart, productive individual humans will be presumed inferior and slaughtered.

And that seems to make perfect sense. From genocide in Ottoman against Armenian, or genocide against Jews in the Holocaust, or genocide against the bourgeois in China communist, and a bunch of pogroms against Chinese in southeast Asia.

There is something about government, especially democratic ones. Some group of people tends to be victims of genocide. The victims tend to be some minorities that are on average smarter and more industrious.

We still have a more subtle genocide in US. The governments make having children artificially costly for the rich.

Imagine if a rich, smart man get married and divorce and have children? The amount of alimony and child support such men pay will be much higher than if he were poor. In most cases, it’s very tricky to settle that before conception or before marriage. It can be done but tricky. Many such men commit suicide. In any case, the rich and smart wouldn’t make too many children.

But why?

There is a simple explanation.
Imagine if I am a dictator. Say I collect 100 poor kids or teenagers. I told them run. The one running the fastest will get money, girls, wives, slaves, bla bla. I’ll kill the slowest 50.

What would the kids do?

They would run for a while.

When they are running, they will learn that many of them will not be the one running the fastest. There are other kids, due to genetic advantage, will outrun them.

Running and winning is not the way to win for most of those kids. However, the penalty is huge. If they lost, they die. So what do you think those kids will do?

They’ll kill the kid in front.

That’ll make perfect sense right?

That dictator is God or mother nature. The kids are just us or our genes to be more exact.

And that’s the kind of game all living beings have been playing and playing. This is why we have war.

War is not always the solution. The Bonobo lives in peace. The Bonobo have orgies all the time. The Bonobo themselves are not at war. Their sperms are. Each Bonobo have big balls that produce massive amount of sperms. So instead of killing each other they out produce each others’ sperm.

Humans are somewhere between Bonobo and Chimps. Humans’ males’ balls are smaller. We don’t win by producing more sperm. We win by attracting more women.

Bonobo achieves peace by changing the games. Basically they no longer “win” by killing other males. They win by producing more sperms than other men. Then they just fuck and fuck and fuck and fuck and well, you know. Those sperms got to be put on the fighting front right?

The way we evolve, when we’re not at war, we’re in a race.

I used to think being a high IQ means I live in easy mode. I learn faster. I can learn whole college physics and Math in months.

Something bothers me. Why do I have to learn non-math stuff in schools? I don’t have an edge in learning memorizing courses. It’s useless in real life.

Why do schools look at your grade in school? Think about it. Different schools have different standards. So your grades in school means nothing right. You can’t compare an A in one school with a C in another.

I graduate thinking that schools are just a nightmare. Surely the market would take care of things. I picked computer science as a major. There are a low supply and high demand for programmers in this world. So, programmers earn more than bricklayers. Really?

Not really. In US the government, for example, allow programmers to get in with H1 visa and pretty much protect bricklayers from having to compete with foreigners. In my country programmers weren’t valued as much.

There is a loophole around this that I took advantage, but that will be a topic of another article.

Now. If you do a job that’s high in demand and low in supply, you make more money. Right? Wrong. We got income taxes. Curiously if people knew that you’ll make more money, you will still pay higher taxes. For example, society does not consider a poor college student eating ramen poor. They consider the college student rich. They consider some bricklayers with wives and kids to be poor. They’ll tax those single students and give money to those with children.

How do you get a job? Can you just post your IQ in your resume? Can’t do that. It’s politically incorrect. Again, as usual, justified by nonsense.

Finally, after going through all those, you can still just aim to get girls. Finally. Gene pool survival. Easy right?

No. If you’re rich, how do you get girls? The easiest way is to just pay for it. Ups, it’s illegal.

Okay, marry them then. Be careful. Remember about the alimony and child support?

If you’re just smart and count on normal economic theory to get rich, you’ll be lucky not to end up like the Jews during Holocaust. Those people are very smart. Chosen by God himself, I’ve heard. Most of them were slaughtered. You would be death too unless you learn from their mistakes.

All those strange anti-competitive laws are there for a reason. They don’t want you to win. They want to win instead. Most people are like the slowest 50 kids in the race. They want you death.

Unless you kill them first or change the game.

Being the smartest species in the world, humans have been changing the game again and again.

Currently, we presume that everyone has the same chance of winning the running race. In fact, we self fulfill those ideas by so many ways.

But how far can we pull this out? Imagine you have a 148 IQ and you are competing against someone with 85 IQ. Let’s see which one of us will have higher paying jobs and make more money and get more girls and produce more children and grandchildren?

Do you think those 85 IQ guys will, vote libertarianism and believe that capitalism is fair?

One way or another, we will evolve. Most will go extinct, some will reproduce.

Wouldn’t it be better if the greatest among us is the one producing the best service to the most customers?

That’ll be very consistent with capitalism too. Capitalism is quite eugenic. However, that’s just not going to be where the game is. Most people just don’t like pure capitalism. So you just have to make the best on what’s your situation.

The best way to deal with those that will not be productive anyway is to simply ensure they’re never born.

No. Abortion and free contraception will not cause genocide, at least not against the best and brightest and most industrious among humans.

To the opposite, not giving them free, legal, or sometimes mandatory contraception, will lead to genocide.

What’s the difference between abortion and infanticide? If we allow abortion, what about if we latter allow murder? Well. The younger the victim, the more politically correct it will be. So yea, free contraception will be the way to go. After that free abortion and mandatory abortion for welfare parasites. That alone should be enough to eliminate poverty in the most rich country.

Open Womb Policies

I am not even sure whether open womb policies is the right term.

Typically, a country does not just allow anyone that wants to come in. Typically people need a visa to enter a country. Also, entering a country don’t usually give someone citizenship.

A country that allows anyone to comes in will have problems. The most indigent immigrants will come and live on welfare, for example. That’ll drain the countries’ resources.

Well. A newborn baby is very similar to an immigrant. Basically, it adds the population. Basically, it’s someone entering the country albeit from slightly different borders. Immigrants come from other countries while the baby comes from the mom’s vagina.

They’re basically “entering” the country, just from a different “border” so to speak.

The kind of immigrant a country want (or what voters/rulers in that country want) should be roughly the same with the kind of new babies that country want.

A democratic country, for example, prefers job creators than job seekers. Most voters will prefer a baby that will more likely create jobs than seeking jobs. A country prefers taxpayers than welfare recipients. That same country will prefer babies that are more likely to pay taxes than becoming welfare recipients.

Yes. We do not know for sure whether a baby will be a welfare recipient or a productive citizen. However, in immigration, we also don’t know that for sure. We make decisions based on the indication. There are plenty of hints for both babies and potential immigrants.

Most problems that come with open border policies are similar to open womb policies.

If countries allow immigrants to come in without vetting, then welfare spending will go up (assuming the immigrants get welfare). The same way, a state that will enable anyone to give birth will also see welfare spending going up.

Immigrants are taking away jobs from citizens. So will most newborn babies when they grow up.

People fear that immigrants will change the character of the country.

Many people in Europe, fear, for example, that if they allow refugees coming from communist or Muslim countries, then those refugees and descendants will vote and demand more socialism or syariah, which many Europeans do not like.

That being said, if a commie or a muslim have more children, their children are also more likely to vote for socialism and syariah too. Same issues.

However, while countries restrict refugees from poorer countries, they do not restrict breeding from their poorer population.

I wonder why?

Shouldn’t countries vet future parents first before allowing them to give birth?

Note: I notice that vetting for immigration is not very tight either. Many countries allow anyone to come in if they can convince the country that they have some minimum income. So for a start, a country can also allow anyone with certain income to reproduce. A country can also give welfare only in exchange for temporary fertilization.

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14062/do-skilled-immigration-policies-harm-developing-countries?rq=1

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25236/do-any-countries-have-a-100-open-immigration-policy?rq=1

Note: I found another thing that’s even more bizarre. Most countries have birth restrictions. However, it works in opposite ways than the way they vet immigrants.

If 1000 people want to come to your country. Say half of them is smart, educated, have sponsors, have a job, and rich, and want to invest. The other half is poor with no special skills and will likely be unemployed. You will allow the “top” half in. You will reject visa for the other half.

Say 1000 people want to be parents. The first half is smart, rich, investor, job creators, bla bla. The other 500 are welfare recipients. The former face restrictions. There are child support laws that prevent rich men from having too many children. The latter can freely breed without limitation.

Why countries “prefer” certain immigrants to come in and yet they also prefer the opposite type to breed?

Why the exact opposite?

Newborn are Effectively Immigrants

Imagine a country with an open border policy. I am not saying it’s bad.

However, we sort of know that’s not politically expedient. In practice, a country is not just a system of NAP. Countries have rulers, called voters, and those voters are essential “owners” of the country. Those owners have certain benefits.

They got welfare check. They got free or discounted education. Their government create jobs if they’re unemployed. And those things can’t easily be scaled up because it’s not actually win win.

So, an immigrant, for example, will dilute ownership and reduce the “cake” available for each citizen in the country. For that reason, most voters in a country do not support open border policy.

What they support are regulated immigration policy where they vet each immigrant.

I am not saying it’s right or wrong. I think it’s reasonable. And for better or worse, that’s simply is what’s happening right now.

Imagine if we have a super open border policy. Not only a country accepts all immigrants, but the country will also give citizenship to all immigrant without restriction.

I think that would be too extreme right? In general, whoever got voted in the office will want to know first beforehand, whether the immigrants are likely to add value to the other citizens. If an immigrant is likely to live on welfare, then no. If an immigrant is a math champion then yes.

I am just wondering what the situation with immigration is actually very similar to the situation with newborn babies.

Countries vet for immigrants coming in. Why don’t they vet for babies coming in?

The babies, are, for most practical purposes, immigrants.

Shouldn’t we ask ourselves, will this baby likely benefit other shareholders or voters?

Visa immigration would ask every immigrant, “Do you have a sponsor? Is someone hiring you?” Shouldn’t a similar department ask parents of a baby, “Oh you’re having a new baby? Do you have a sponsor? Do you have enough money to support the baby?”

No country have open border policy. Yet some countries, have pretty much open womb policy. All sort of genes and traits can enter the country through birth without vetting.

I am not saying it’s right or wrong. Kind of inconsistent don’t you think?

Pick any reason why you should vet an immigrant. Then chance is, that reason can also be applied to vet a baby or parents.

Maybe not always. For example, it’s obviously not making any sense to vet a baby that’s not even born yet. Well. In both cases, you can a vet the parents.

So, what do you think about this?

No country has super open border policy. Should such a country also not have a super open womb policy?

Should Capitalists Complain About Taxes

Socialists shouldn’t complain that Bill Gates is richer than them. They may, however, more legitimately complain, if they are poorer than say other people’s countries that are also poorer than US.

Not that their complain is valid, but it’s far more reasonable.

If even Indonesians have universal healthcare and they don’t, that’s a reasonable complain. The truth is, Indonesian healthcare isn’t that awesome either and I think free market is better.

But it would have been more reasonable to say I have a bad government if my government is indeed worse than other governments.

The same ways, capitalists in US probably shouldn’t complain too much about tax if they are richer than capitalists in Indonesia.

In a sense, the wealth of the rich justify benefits of the poor. The poor votes for better economic model, usually capitalistic, that allow the rich to get wealthy.

The same way the benefit to the poor justify the wealth of the rich. The benefit for the poor is why all countries should be capitalistic. Otherwise why would they vote for capitalism?

It’s like benefit to customers and profit for shopkeepers justify one another. I think I am on to something here.

Why We Shouldn’t Hold Our Principles 100%

Someone offers the king the game of chess. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/11/17/the-seduction-of-the-exponential-curve/#70dae6ac2480 .

“What do you want in return,” asks the king. I want a grain of rice in the first box of the chess, and 2 grain of rice in the second, and so on, till 64 boxes are all filled. Very well, said the king.

Of course, the number of the grains of rice after just 30-40 boxes are more than all the rice in the world.

Stupid king ha?

The king have made a mistake in doing what he did. Where is his mistake? Offering a grain or rice? No. That’s reasonable. Agreeing to double the grain for every box? That’s not too obviously wrong too. Agreeing to do those two things with 64 boxes?

Each of the mistake is harmless on it’s own. Someone that think it’s okay is not really wrong. However, if we hold all of our principles too tightly, things can go really wrong.

Well. We now have a game of welfare. Feed this poor little kid that’s unfortunate with 1 grain of rice. Then he has humans right to produce 2 kids. What?

He’s on welfare. Shouldn’t he work first?

“No. Restricting reproduction is un american,” they said. “Popping babies like machine guns are humans’ right” they said.

Then we feed each of them 1 grain of rice. And they produce 2 kids each.
Then we feed each of them….

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/26/welfare-system-beveridge-75-years

Welfare is not a problem. The amount of grain of rice on first box is not the problem. We can feed them more.

The blank check exponential catastrophy by insisting they have humans’ right to breed before they become productive. That is the issue.

Should Couples Have a Right to Decide Child Support Amount Before Conception?

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/13536/can-men-in-various-countries-make-pre-conception-child-support-deals

Should couples have a right to decide child support amount before conception?

Imagine a fetus live that’s actually desirable but not too desirable. Imagine if a woman agrees for only $2k/month child support before conception from a millionaire/billionaire?

Currently, in some countries, they do not. Most are not even aware that people don’t have such choices. They do not.

So we’re not talking about abortion. Within abortion, we’re talking about an obviously undesirable fetus. Based on economic principle of (excessive) supply and (lack of) demand, an aborted fetus life is undesirable and hence, worthless.

Here, both parents want to conceive and they are willing to spend $2k per month to support the child after conception.

Reasonable right? That’s more than enough to support a child? Well. The child is actually desirable.

As far as I know that’s legally impossible if the parents are millionaires.

Some liberals will say the child that’s not even conceived yet, have a right to get $50k/a month. Parents do not even have the right to decide the amount of child support for their children. The government did.

And the government set that up based on a number that has nothing to do with the actual amount of money required to support a child.

This is not even pro choice or pro life. It’s both. A girl want to fuck a millionaire and a living baby with their own money without costing taxpayers. They cannot.

And yet, when some welfare parasites want to pop 40 babies with taxpayers’ money, it’s suddenly humans’ right according to the libtards.

The right wingers make it even worse by demanding the baby is born even if neither parents want the baby and want to abort. Now that’s weird.

It seems that the right libtards and right-wingers want is the right to create more poverty. The libtards want popping poor babies to be a right. The right-wingers want it to be mandatory. They both think it’s okay to pop babies if it creates more poverty. If it creates wealth then they limit it

Why Westphalian Sovereignty is a Very Good Idea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty westphalian sovereignty is the most important treaty in the world. We owe our 60% of our capitalism to this. The other 20% is due to democracy I think.

It’s close to libertarianism but more practical. While libertarianism advocates the sovereignty of individuals, it is simply not used in practice. The states are simply far more powerful than individuals. Hence, states can easily violate NAP by say, taxing people. States, however, cannot easily tax other states.

Most state borders are often easily defensible terrain. Most states know how to defend themselves.

Unlike muggers that can mug you when no one is looking, a state cannot attack other states without anyone knowing easily. State relationship is like walking in crowded market. Nobody can mug or rob people in the crowded market.

The westphalian sovereign does not protect individuals’ right directly. For example, a state can ban Protestantism. Noninterference between states means a protestant state cannot tell a Catholic state it’s wrong.

In fact, the US cannot force Venezuella to be Capitalistic. That would violate westphalian sovereignty. So it doesn’t seem like Westphalian sovereignty would promote capitalism.

However, capitalism don’t spread by force. Capitalism spread because it works. A state may have a “right” not to be capitalistic. However, such states will be poor like Venezuella.

In the beginning, I would imagine a protestant man may be prosecuted in a catholic country. Maybe a bit like a sunni man may be oppressed in a shiah country.

However, Westphalian sovereign protects tons of individuals’ right indirectly. Most individuals can simply leave bad states and move to more fair states. This give incentive for every states to behave well.

Many libertarians do not consider the right to leave justify statism. I do not know. Who cares? Justified or not, most states have way stronger incentives to protect individual freedom and capitalism. That’s how the states got rich.

Any state that discriminates against people due to anything that’s wrong will have their best and brightest move to another state.

Fast forward a few hundreds years and we see western europe becoming secular countries. All those states realize that discriminating based on religions sucks and become secular.

We also see western europe trading with the whole world. They and their descendants dominate the economy of the world for the last 300 years.

Unlike in China, where the Ming court can prohibit free trade, the european kings cannot prohibit any kind of free trade. Marco-polo and Colombus that’s rejected by one state can simply get funding from another state and trade anyway.

The same goes with any state that tax too high.

In fact, I wonder how long states will still tax income? High-income people can move to another state. Hell, they don’t even have to do that. They can stay in the same state, enjoy the protection and infrastructure of the state, and their “income” can migrate to a tax haven. Just look at virtually all start up corporations in the world.

However, a state that tax land will get constant revenue irrelevant of who owns or stay in the land. As long as someone else own the land, the state can easily tax it.

Westphalian sovereignty has lower taxes, end religious discriminations and bring capitalism in most states. It makes countries compete peacefully rather than waging war endlessly. It makes countries become more and more like private companies.

Westphalian sovereignty is essentially libertarianism for states. It’s an outer layer of capitalism that brings capitalism deep within every state.

If we want a better world, whatever it is, just set some experimental cities and give those cities some westphalian sovereign or something close to it. Let the experimental cities govern as they please. If it works, the rest can copies, if it doesn’t work, we just roll back.

In fact, small countries already behave like this.

We can measure the value of humans’ life through many different ways

A way to measure the value of humans’ life is to compute the money we spend to keep that human alive.

When my friends’ daughter was a fetus they had a problem. The doctor asks if they want to keep her. The cost of fixing it is about $100 though and they choose to fight for it. She is 10 years old now.

However, if the cost is $100k I would say fuck it. In fact are there fetus’ condition that cost $100k to fix? Do people spend $100k to save the life of a fetus?

And that makes me wonder.

Say you have $100k in a bank. A doctor comes to you and tell, your 1-week fetus have a potential problem.

Fetus with this sort of problem usually die. We usually don’t care about it. There is not much medical research that detects or cure this kind of problem because virtually there is no demand.

However, advancement in technology now allows us to see the problem on the regular check. We can fix that for $100k.

Or you can just let the fetus die naturally and fuck your girlfriend and create another fetus.

Meanwhile, you need that $100k to cure your 17 years old son.

What would you do?

You’re a pro-lifer. You believe that the fetus is humans and alive. It is. It really is.

Do you think the fetus life is as much worth saving as your 17 years old son that just graduated from college with 4.0 GPA and enter colleges?

Do you think a fetus life worth the same with your son?

Assume there is no universal healthcare so you pay out of your pocket.
Let me ask a shorter question. Say your baby has down syndrome. Would you abort or just reroll the genetic dice?