Google Money Tree vs Marriage

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

The issue is where do we draw the line? Google money tree does not explicitly commit fraud or force people. If they do, it wouldn’t be FTC they’re dealing with. More like DA with some jail term. What would libertarian think about it? Forcing people to disclose information about the deals like lemon laws? That doesn’t sound libertarian.

Also google money tree is not the only scheme with this issue.

For example, customers are not aware that they are paying $80/month. However, they “effectively” agree due to some twisted form of logic. The terms of paying $80 somewhere else that customers do not read.

Basically FTC stand, which is quite reasonable, is that when part of a deal is MATERIAL, it has to be in front and customers have to EXPLICITLY agree rather than just implicitly agree.

By precedence of google money tree, MATERIAL terms that can have adverse effect of a deal will have to be agreed upon EXPLICITLY rather than implicitly.

Well, the same way, did Beatty Chadwick explicitly agree to pay 2.5 million to his wife? Did many husband that are paying $3k/month alimony to ex wife that is already fucking someone else explicitly agree to this exit clause contract?

People promise to love each other in the marriage. Why not make the marriage vow to be more “comprehensive”. Why not include I agree to support the children of this woman no matter who the father is?

By agreeing to get married people IMPLICITLY agree to be bound by the law of marriage. The law of marriage, drafted by congress rather than marrying couple, based on interests of swing voters in a sense become some form of “contract”. Most people do not even read the contract. Most of us are indoctrinated not to even bother reading the detail of the law counting instead of love. Worse, all alternative are illegal or politically incorrect, especially those DIRECTLY competing with marriage, like prostitution, contract marriage, and polygamy.

It’s as if, societies and legislators WANT you to get married. Under libertarian societies, societies’ interest should mean absolutely NOTHING when it comes to consensual terms. Yet in sex, it’s significant.

Basically by prohibiting google money tree we fret over companies stealing $80 here and there, which I think is a healty experience for people to be careful. Getting screwed small time is a good thing for xp. Yet, we allow congressmen and politicians to lie. We allow government to spread unobjective facts about drugs.

We allow the army to encourage children to become soldiers without fully explaining of what can happen. In Iran, kids are told to run through land mines. Hell, and we thought MDMA is dangerous for minor ha?

We have very complicated laws that NO BODY can understand, and then blame the poor guy that broke it. Case Studies

In a sense the law is like a contract between us and society. A contract too long and too complicated no body is actually reading it.

Justice system in all countries are a mockery of common sense. In one hand we gives thieves burglars and robbers so many right that they often go free out of technicality just to make REALLY SURE we do not convict a single innocent. On the other hand, DA can effectively FORCE innocent people to confess with plea bargain. Obviously given that almost everything is a crime, a DA won’t have problem finding something as bargaining position for plea bargain. In US 90% of conviction is on plea bargain like Alford. Just look at here as a sample. A DA can even bribe anyone to testify against you and that’s legal. Beyond reasonable doubt ha? Well, only if you have OJ’s lawyer.

In my country, don’t ask. Money talk.

The idea of justice in US is DA think he should punish you for rejecting plea bargain. The same way in Indonesia, DA would want to punish you for not paying him. What’s the difference? Both is not about whether you’re guilty or not.

Signing up to google money tree is a mistake. A mistake google money tree want you to make. The same way, getting married is a mistake for beatty chadwick, Tiger Wood, and this guy .

Getting married is a mistake for my high school friend that now cannot go out of marriage despite the fact that she wanted too. It’s a mistake. A mistake that religious bigots want us to make.

There are things that no body would ever normally agree too. But they are presumed to agree anyway to some form of logic. That the agreement is somewhere else that they never read.

I think the same standard that’s applicable to google money tree should be applicable to marriage, LLC, and many other aspects of law.

I just want to make sense of all this. Perhaps we just need a more correct theory. Perhaps libertarian is simply not practical. Perhaps, power, rather than wealth is indeed the real wealth, and well that’s really what the game really is. Libertarian wants power for every individuals over himself. The same way commies want workers to get full value of his productivity. Actually under capitalism, workers do, given that interest rates go lower and lower or even effectively negative due to regulations. It’s just that the workers are now called entrepreneurs, or capitalists, rather than the poor capital owners that just save money on banks.

Well, perhaps we are just bitching. Anybody can bitch. The truly smart is those who see the world the way it really is and be successful. Get rich, yet respected and thanked. Someone like Suharto.

And no wickedfire has the highest percapita income. I will have to resurrect my adwords to affiliate biz, which seems to be what wickedfire is really all about. Need more people working with me. MOAR. I love capitalism. Everyone else works. I make even more. And those people are even more profited because I pay them higher than Indonesian sallary. As long as I make more I pay more.

DA Effectively Rules the Nation When We Have Too Many Laws

By the way, I am seeing a pattern here. Correct me if I am wrong. DA can choose which case to pursue right? It is often to his interest (or his conscience interest) to pursue cases that match his political agenda. In a sense, DA makes the law because he can choose which laws he wants to pursue. It’s like recent Wendy’s article where DA refuses to convict rape because the woman has had an abortion. Also DA refuses to prosecute false rape accusation because they he wants to punish free sex.

For example, it is possible that the DA hate this businessman for committing 2 heinous evil.
1. Importing meat. Delicious one I must add
2. Rich

The problem is those 2 are not a crime so they pick something else. It’s just like Al Capone.

Now he wants you to be guilty for something. So there goes lacey act. The idea is it’s illegal to import wild life that is harvested in violation of another country’s law if:
1. A law is broken. Including footlings laws. In many countries laws are informal. Laws are just there so someone bribe the judge.
2. The law is made to protect environment. Well I wonder why judges do not require juries to proof this beyond reasonable doubt first. It seems that the box vs clear plastic bag is there to protect honduran’s job.
3. The defendant know or should have known that they’re breaking the law. I wonder how do we proof that in court given that honduran high court believe that no law has been violated. If even honduran attorney general don’t think it’s a law, how the hell an american importer “should have known” that he is breaking a law.

The businessman get slapped because he breaks honduran law, which implies that he breaks lacey act, which implies that he breaks some laws, which implies that the act of importing is a crime, which implies money laundering, and conspiracy, and whatever.

I wish DA were this creatives against thieves and fraudsters.

I guess I talked too much already. But seriously I see a recurring pattern. In my country as well as yours.

A woman successfully defend with knife against a potential rapist. Then she got convicted of another unrelated crime of someone else that cut off the penis of of someone else in some ritual. The only similarity between the woman’s act and the charge against her is that she confessed that she stab her attackers in the groin. No DNA links, eyewitness, etc.

However, some more comprehensive read will show the real reason why she get convicted of murder. She’s a stripper. Somebody just want to punish those people and they just need a reason.

Wow. Scary ha?

This is a similar pattern that explains why consensual crimes are well, crime.

Women pick another male. Obviously someone want to prevent that. Fuck, I am bored with this topic already.

Let’s try another thing. Some people have fun with drug. Well, somebody just have to make that illegal. After all if people can be happy through unapproved ways then they are less easy to screw. Politicians need to starve people out of happiness if they want easier control and bigger bribe. So marijuana just have to be illegal. Well, I read

Man. Those things are not even as dangerous as cigarette.

I just see patterns. Perhaps for once I just want to see things the way they are. Not as good as evil but as of what really is going on.

I mean libertarian do not want power. Well, maybe we’re the one that’s wrong. Maybe power is the real wealth. Maybe we’re like commies that claim that wealth is evil and end up poor. The same way, libertarian feel that power is wrong and end up week. Then get screwed and fucked over. Then bitch about it. Not very responsible isn’t it?

Fuck that. I wanna be dictators. To hell with right of others. Might makes right. It’s all part of the game. No productivity don’t magically turn into right until  you have power to enforce that right. Nothing is. It’s just fact.

Making Things go Wrong

This case is slightly different. The laws are not related. However, selective enforcement of laws are made to encourage things to “go wrong” when certain acts are done.

After all, no body can, in a sense, prohibits anything. All we can do is to make things “go wrong” once in a while, when that thing is done.

For example.

1. Bob steal. Bob gets caught. Stealing is illegal. So things can go wrong if you steal. So there will be less thieves.

Notices that many thieves are of course not caught. However, the fact that things can go wrong for YOU when YOU steal discourage people from stealing.

If we think about it, that’s as far as we can go on prohibiting something. All we can do is making things go wrong when somebody do it. We can’t mind control everyone from stealing.

Now here are some more creative samples:

1. AIDS. Many religious group love AIDS. Because that discourages free sex. So many discourage safe sex education besides abstinance.
2. False rape accusation. That discourage free sex too. That is why DA, especially conservative DAs, do not pursue false rape accusations.
3. Charging the women I mentioned with murder. Well, she committed stripping doesn’t she?
4. Making money as in lobster cases. Which is fucked over by so many insane laws, lawsuits, etc. The truth is many people do not want you to be rich. They just want things to go wrong when you do.
5. Marriage. Alimony is one mechanism where things can go really wrong when rich smart males get laid. Subconsciously swing voters want to exterminate superior competitors and hence they want things to go really wrong for rich smart males. Exorbitant alimony is not a problem if you’re poor. Alimony is like a serum that only exterminate the rich, but not the poor.
6. Jail terms tend to hurt the rich more than the poor. That explains why rich people don’t rob banks, because their political cost is higher. Problem starts when jail terms are invoked on low damage crimes that should be punished with fine instead.

Jesus the Success Life Coach

Many people use Jesus words as justification of their political agenda. Well, that’s another issue. Today I want to see Him as something different.

What about if Jesus is not an ethical teacher that teach  you how to get to heaven. What about if what He said can actually be PROFITABLY applied for REAL benefit in THIS life.

That could be pretty unintuitive. After all, many Jesus’ advice is quite suicidal. And that’s the very reason why his teaching is popular. Too many people want to promote suicidal advices.

Nobody is actually practicing what He said. They just insist that the rest of us do because they want us to fuck our self up for them.

But with a little “creative” interpretation, it could actually be something quite lucrative. And who knows it’s the correct interpretation.

Let’s examine one of the case. Be fair and merciful. Jesus claimed that it’s the essence of all Torah.

If you’re fair, you properly align people’s interest with your interest. So people want to be fair. Being fair is then sort of like an end to itself because it’s profitable. If you’re merciful, then you step on less toes. You make less enemies and more friends. There is a lot of people that want to be fair for say 20% of their interests. Those people will then be nice to merciful people.

Then you have a lot of friend and biz partners. Then because you’re fair, you profit those who profit you. Then more people want to profit you. Because you’re merciful, you start of this positive feedback lucrative relationship with more people. Then ever wonder why the rich get richer? Yea they got thousands of fan on their back wanting them to get richer. Employees, families, judges, cops, politicians, and who knows what.

Yes, Jesus’ words, unlike classical economy, contains plenty descriptions of positive feedback system! And positive feedback system is the key to achieve anything BIG.

And yes the richer got richer. As Jesus said. To those who have, more are given. To those who doesn’t, the little he has is taken from him.

What’s more here can’t possibly be just money. It’s skills, connections, mindset, traits the rich have that they keep having more and more above the rest. It’s incomplete to say that the rich are more dilligent, or more determined, or have more money and that’s how they got rich. The truth is the rich tend to have more of everything, and keep getting more because they have more.

As we practice the heavenly profit path we get rich. When we get rich, we get laid. Women prefer the rich. What matters is not how rich we are. What happen is how rich we are relative to the rest. Those who are not getting it then get relatively poorer under capitalistic societies. Then they didn’t attract biz partners and get relatively poorer again.

Or what about this. Faith can move mountain. Way to go. It’s a very important concept in game theory. It’s called Nash Equilibrium. Nash Equlibrium is like a blackhole that can attract situation. The more people believe in a Nash equilibrium the more they believe on it, the more they count on it, the more they bet on it. Once they bet on it, the sort of want it to happen.

Imagine 2 kings, Bob and Ann competing to be an emperor. Say more people believe that Bob got mandate of heaven. Then more people would fight for Bob. Then Ann’s followers will get crucified naked along with their whole family while Bob’s followers will rape hot cunts. Once you believe Bob is the winning team, and start putting that faith into action, say by massacring Ann’s followers, you’d better hope Bob do win. Lest you ended up like Nazis in Nuremberg’s trial.

Uhuk uhuk… Don’t judge. Just learn. And you’ll go to achieve great fortune. When that happened, who are we to tell that Bob is evil? Who are we trying to remove a speckle from a savvy politician’s eyes while our own  eyes are blocked by a bucket of bullshit called norms, morality, and ethics often without questioning where all those really come from.

And what about giving the other cheek? Well, a slap is an attack against your pecking order. It doesn’t cause significant bodily or monetarily harm.

Imagine if you’re a jew and a roman soldiers slap you. Well, you can slap back, but that means crucifixion. However if you yield, the roman soldier also has another choice. He can keep beating you. But what does that mean? What would happen if we keep beating the fuck out of those that already yield to us? No body wants to yield to us anymore. Not a good idea. Of course, this strategy won’t work against those with not much reputational cost. Still Jesus could mean something around that area.

It’s once said that Keynes, one of the richest nobel prize winner in economy, once said that he’s heavily criticized by the commies. He said it’s quite good that the conservative capitalists are cursing him too. So here is a tip for true christians. Offend everyone equally. For that way you get slapped by both side.

Or what about George Bush that got shoes thrown at him. Imagine if it’s Saddam that got hit by shoes. George, which was the most powerful man on the earth, chose a light attitude. The shoe thrower got a light sentence for the physical damage he causes. However, he isn’t penalized for the magical damage of lowering George’s peking order.

And what about that the greatest among us are those who serve? Yap. Free market capitalism. The greatest among capitalists are the those providing the best service to the most customer. What else? A great idea ha. The greatest idea ever. It’s said that even Adam Smith himself is not a smart mathematician. He is inspired by Jesus actually. Lots of good things are inspired by religions, in ancient time. Now all the good ideas move to science, blogs, and internet.

The smart don’t bother using religions anymore to make their point because they now have plenty of evidences anyway. But how the hell they have plenty of evidences that an idea works? Because we tried the idea. And why did we try an idea? Because some lunatic believe in an unintuitive nonsense called religion telling us to believe it’s a cool idea. Religions used to be quite fine till like 50 years ago. That’s another huge topic. No I don’t look up to religions. I won’t look down to it too much too. Nowadays, I would say most religious ideas sucks. But that’s another huge topic.

And what about seek first the kingdom of God/heaven and it’s truth and all will be added to you? Perhaps heaven ways are ways that works no matter how the situation. I like Math because a few rules in Math govern all things. Perhaps Jesus wants to teach us that by understanding a few rules that govern all things we can kick ass, quite obviously.

Say we’re fair, merciful, and capitalistic, for example. Then we wouldn’t need to worry about what will we eat, or what will we wear, or how wide our TV is, or how big our house is. Why worry of what we eat, if rice comes cheaply from Vietnam. Why worry about what we wear if textiles come cheap from China.

When we give to what other’s ask, namely opening our market, then we can concentrate on what we’re good at and have abundance. Or sort of.

Yea give to those who ask for it. Contrast that with so many people that are giving us protection against things we never want. Males protect women from polygamy and prostitution. Religious bigots protect us from drugs, and porn. Did they even bother to see what we’re really asking? Compare that to capitalists. Bigots are asking for T shirt with Che’s picture. Capitalists give what others’ ask, not what they think others’ should be asking. Giving to those who ask is then one principle of capitalism. We give what others’ ask so we too, get what we are asking.

Perhaps giving here means selling at cheap price after further lowering marginal cost. Jesus, after all, is a  jew.

And what about find the truth and the truth will set you free. Here is some truth. Jesus said that prostitute will go to heaven faster than religious expert. Jesus turned water into wine, suggesting that it’s okay to get drunk, smoke ecstasy, marijuana. If anything, the bible actually teach us to give wine to those who are doomed.Imagine if we legalize marijuana for anyone that don’t have kids. There goes poverty.

And when Jesus says that people shouldn’t get a divorce, his disciples quickly ask, “Why marry?” Yea. Why bother? Marriage rates, measured by numbers of babies born within wedlock drops to 50% in US when congress makes tough alimony laws that makes divorcing a bitch. Why get married? What’s wrong with wine? Do you feel free already?

Perhaps there is something there. Some truth that’s difference than what religious bigots want us to believe. Knowing those truth would set us free, and that means deprive bigots from slaves. Why else church opposes translating bible 500 years ago? Somehow they knew, that easier access to “truth” will indeed set people free. God can be way more libertarian than religious rulers.

And what about plucking our eyes if it deceive us. Does porn deceive you? Doesn’t look that way to me. If anything porn allow males to more accurately access product quality. Porn is not deceiving. Clothes are and burqha are. Perhaps, the eyes here mean any irrational bullshit. You wouldn’t want to have that kind of eye anyway. Lest you end up in gas chamber following inaccurate political strategy.

Imagine if you live in a country. Say some people says that free market doesn’t work. Would it make sense to pluck that deceiver out to Gulag and keep embracing free market? Yea capitalists don’t use high handed means to exterminate even vermin that hate them. Aren’t capitalists true Christians? But even if we do, we’re still good. Just look at what commies do to bourgeois in communist countries. I am not suggesting that we should kill commies. But we should remember that we are already too nice for them.

And what about the idea that our father in heaven gives rain to those who are evil and good. Imagine if you’re God. Imagine if you insist that only the good guys get rain. Now it’s even more difficult and costly right?

A miracle is like debugging a program. So you have this computer program called universe. Then you have to create a miracle. So you press that break button, point the debugger to the right place and change the variable. If you keep doing that then you’re not a good programmer. Good God do few miracles.

For that same reason capitalists, unlike Bob’s supporter, benefit not only those who love capitalism but also those who hate us. Aren’t we like God already? Lowering cost of SEO to those who are good and evil alike?

So benefiting everyone, even those that hate us is what differentiates the good guys from the normal guys. After all, even Hitler loves his allies. Even commies take care their comrades. But capitalists benefit everyone. And that’s why we’re the good guys.

We put PC, and software, and information on the fingertips of commies and capitalists alike. That’s not so “up there” isn’t it. We did it for our own profit. We don’t deliberately try to help those bigots. If anything we prefer not to. Our left hand don’t know what our right hand is doing, as Jesus said. But it means a lot for everyone right? That’s why more and more people embrace capitalism and globalization.

What else. Jesus claimed that he doesn’t cancel the Torah but completed it. Let’s put an example. In one hand he said sort of look like he’s canceling the eye for an eye commandment. Well not demanding an eye for an eye sort of explains, perhaps, the true original intent of the commandment. It’s not really an eye for an eye. It’s really mean that we should minimize damage to anyone’s eyes in the first place as if their eyes are our own eyes. Of course without an eye for an eye rules some crooks would pluck out many people eyes say when robbing and hence why the law is necessary. However, any other arrangement that sort of work to properly align our interests would work fine too.

That being said, an eye for an eye, called tit for tat, is the algorithm that win a repeated prisoner dilemma’s game made by Robert Axelrod. So while the original intent is not to have anyone’ eyes plucked, perhaps the best way to do it is to indeed have an eye for an eye rule.

And what about do unto others what others want to do to you? The first thing people think is I want people to give me money so I should give money away. Let’s think again. Do we really want people to give us money out of pitty? No. We want them to be fair to us. We want them to pitty us only when we’re in really really fuck up situation. So we treat others fairly too. Ayn Rand once said that he will never sacrifice someone else for his interest nor will she sacrifice herself for others. I think Ayn is not far from kingdom of heaven.

And what about not judging? One day I was in a Spa and I see an Irian. I’ve heard about how in Irian their officials used up a lot of the people’s money. I didn’t like politicians. I judged them evil. So I didn’t exchange contact with them.

But what did I know? In a world where so many people opposes free market, we need corrupt leaders to counter the evil will of socialist and religious bigots. These corrupt officials serve an important social function. Also he has something I don’t, power. And that guy was very polite to me. Next time I meet him I would learn from him. Perhaps I can be a rich dictators too.

After all, aren’t we all politicians? We break laws when we think we won’t get caught. And all politicians make so many laws that everyone is criminal anyway to maximize control. If we blame those, aren’t we like commies that blame capitalists while they themselves do not understand money? The same way, we blame politicians for having so much power while we, our self, don’t bother learning how political power works.

That being said, kingdom of heaven may have a version that’s more real. Something on our own mind that get us things. If after we die there is another judgement that put some additional benefit, it’ll be a different story. I don’t know. However, perhaps some rewards for following some heavenly path is right here right now. Out of the fruit we know the seed. Just try. If things work well and we get richer. Then good. If not, the idea may come from Satan.

My favorite is the story of Samaritan. Jesus said that we have to love our neighbor. Then the jew asked, who is my neighbor. Jesus said that your neighbor is those who have mercy on you. So what is he really saying? Be nice to those who are nice to you. Simple. Who among us wouldn’t want to help those who have helped us when we’re in need? If I am dying on a street and some guy helped me, wouldn’t I be very grateful to that guy? Wouldn’t it be to my be best interest to be nice to those who are good to me? Good to those who are good to me and ignore the rest sounds like pretty sound life strategy.

To be frank, I wasn’t sure on what Jesus is. No body knows whether the gospel is even true or not. He only showed up for like 3 years and changed the world so much. The gospel mentioned 4 passovers. Like Buddha, He is not something we should just ignore and move on.

People Maximizing Control

Guys, remember me. The guy that keep insisting that the reason behind marriage is to ration females in equal shares for everyone?

I think I am not quite right.

Saying that would be like saying that the reason why people want to be rich is to buy an ice cream, or a house.

Well, a better analysis is

1. People want to be rich
2. Money by it self DO NOT bring happiness. However, we sort of know that money can be bartered for things that can, like big TV.
3. Obviously buying a house is a big aspect at least for most people but it doesn’t have to be that way.

So the conclusion is people want to be rich. It doesn’t necessarily means they want ice cream.

Well, I was walking with a junkie that eat ecstasy. I then looked up ecstasy and I was surprised. Ecstasy is LESS dangerous than smoking. Also an interview with DEA agent when ecstasy were legal is that the head of DEA wanted to control it anyway BEFORE there is any news that ecstasy are dangerous at all. In fact, how marijuana got illegal is through a TEMPORARY order waiting for some research result. After the research shows that it’s not dangerous, government simply don’t live that temporary ban.

So here is a new theory.

We think humans maximize their wealth. Well, what does wealth do if you’re the Baghdad citizens when slaughtered by Mongols, or Armenians when slaughtered by Turkey, or Jews when slaughtered by Nazi.

Perhaps we need to analyze a different variable. Something the mongols had but the Baghdad citizens didn’t. No, not wealth. Power. Control of wealth. Control, in a sense is a real wealth. Even if you own money, it won’t do you any good is the money is in a thief’s pocket and hence thieves’ control. When I buy McDonald, I am not exchanging ownership of my money for big mac. No. I am exchanging control of my money for control ship of Bic Mac. Who knows who still own the BicMac afterward, who care. It’s in my hand, I eat it.

Not lilke Mc Donald will summon lawyers to get back the BigMac. If it doesn’t, I would argue that I own the big mac. That will somehow have a magical ability to stop the lynching mob from killing me for eating the big mac. Mc Donald, knowing that will not bother disputing my control of the Bigmac. So as you see, ownership is only good as far as it reassert control. Control is then the more “natural” variable.

Just like it’s natural to expect that human want more money, it should be even more natural then to expect that a lot of individuals, VERY SMART INDIVIDUALS, want control.

We can think of that control, like wealth, is an end to itself. Just like when someone rob me, I would think that he did it for the money. Whether he did it because he wants to buy a house or ice cream is kind of far fetches. I would presume that the robbers would use the money for his own benefit rather than mine, quite obviously. More money for him, good for him. Bad for me.

The same way when legislators wants to rob our freedom, we should think, ah, this guy just want to rob more power. For what purpose legislators want to do it is quite irrelevant. I suppose it’ll be something beneficial for the legislators. Quite obviously legislators will talk about how the purpose is to protect my interests, or God’s will, or whatever so he can face less resistant when stealing our freedom. But who care? They’re robbers. And that’s the issue.

We really should stop caring about the bullshit people do to justify their control. We really shouldn’t care. We should tell people that if legislators want to restrict your freedom it’s like they want to steal your money. That’s it. Whether it’s God’s will or for morality or whatever, it doesn’t matter.

Then why do people wants to control sex? The same reason why they want to control drug. They want to maximize their control. With control, come benefit. It could be to ration mates in equal share for everyone as I propose. I still think it’s like 65% of the reason why middle class and swing voters support prohibitions of many consensual sex.

But again it can be anything else. Bribe. Higher legislators salary. Who knows. More control more profit.

You see, marijuana, porn watcher, ecstasy users, and prostitutes are NOT guilty of harming themselves, like everyone always said. They are guilty of being HAPPY without permission from the controllers. Quite obviously the swing voters and legislators are quite pissed. People having fun outside what they allow would undermine their control (or perception of control, which is effectively the effective control).

In other word, just like I was mad that a thief stole my dreamcast 10 years ago, feminazis, religious bigots, enviromentalists, and DEA are mad when you smoke marijuana or have sex outside life long monogamous marriage with women consensually imported from swahili.

I was mad to the thief because I lost my properties because of the thief and hence I want to exterminate thieves. The same way, controllers are mad at happy people because those happy people make the controllers lose something far more precious than dreamcast, namely slaves, which is, of course, us.

What do you guys think?

Oh ya, some people says that path to hell is paved with good intention. I think path to hell is paved with hellish intention. If a dictator control economy and then things went south, it’s not unintended consequences of otherwise benign intention.

The dictator wanted to rob control, which is just like robbing money but somehow less understood intuitively. It’s that simple. Of course it comes at the expense of the robbery victims like usual. And if poor people become plenty, it’s none of the dictator’s concern. If anything, the poor is a good justification for more control. So why not?

Avoid controlling people at all costs.

Marriage Old and New

In the past marriage actually reduce poverty. Marriage allowed males to know who their biological son is, allowing inheritance. This provides strong intensives for males to work harder and get richer because he knew, while he’s not taking it with him, his son would.

Also religious control on marriage wasn’t as bad and restrictive as it was now.

The little control societies and “parents” over their kids behavior can be good. Imagine if there is a dispute whether the sex is consensual or not?

Imagine if males can mate with women and then run away leaving moms and kids starving. Imagine if males can cuckold other males and get their kids supported with the diligent males’ hard work? Then no body would want to work hard and they will all just try to plant seeds on those who do.

Understandably, marriage used to be a reasonable solution for that.

Nowadays we can have normal statement of consent. Paternity can be tested with DNA tests. Adultery is far less dangerous, at least in the area of paternity fraud issue.

Yet religions still support marriage that seems to get worst and worst.

Beatty Chadwick went to jail for 14 years over $2.5 million alimony issue. So Beatty earned that $2.5 million dollar. Due to his marriage, judge thinks that his wife, rather than he, should have the money instead. Because Beatty didn’t pay he ended up in jail.

Is this the kind of rules that motivate males to work harder and get richer? No wonder the rich are less likely to get married and actually produce less offspring. If anything this creates poverty.

Nowadays, if your wife commit adultery and get pregnant, you still have to support the bastard child irrelevant of DNA tests.

Yet religious people still insist that you get married at the pain of extinction.

If you choose to get married, societies will presume that you agreed to all terms of marriage as defined by your legislators.

Some of us believe in God. Do you think God wants you to agree to potentially support some bastard child just to get laid?

Marriage is a transaction. There are 5 reasons why we choose marriage over say, prostitution.

1. Religion. The truth is marriage nowadays are very different than marriage in the past. It’s a totally different deal.
2. Clarity of transaction. Well prostitution is superior than marriage on this area.
3. Freedom from third party interests. Again prostitution is better.
4. Common. Better deals are not necessarily best seller. We need to see that others are happy and then we move there. There are so many information about marriage making it focal. Prostitution is hidden by censorship.
5. Fair deal. No play no pay. The money comes with the cock. Here, marriage is simply unfair. The party that put more money on the table will be worst off than those who don’t.

Marriage makes those who love each other end up killing each other, often quite literally. However, information about the alternative is rare due to censorship.

Escort, for example, is legal while prostitution is not legal. So it’s hard for alternative to grow.

Are Religions Getting Worse?

The christians often talk how often the brightest scientists are christians. Even Adam Smith didn’t really write wealth of nations based on math alone, but is motivated by christianity.

The muslims often talk about how in ancient time, muslim civilization are very advance relative to their peers.

A long time ago, “Protestant work ethic,” motivate Protestants to work more diligently and earn more money.

Jesus’ words that the greatest among us should be those who serve become a basis for capitalism.

In fact religions used to be capitalists’ main ally against communist hordes.

Nowadays, muslim religions are tell tale justification for terrorism, which is not part of market mechanism.

Christians simply demand less and less porn interfering with others’ choice to enjoy their live.

Naturally, countries run based on religious dogma earn less per capita income despite their often higher oil reserve.

Religious norms are often no longer compatible with free market, choice and productivity anymore.

What happened?

Let’s examine a seemingly different issue. In a seminar a speaker told me that in the “good” old day we can lend money by just shaking hand and things will work “fine”. Nowadays, people go through contract, with exit clauses, and check credit rating.

The speakers say things are getting worst. We can’t trust others anymore.

Perhaps the 2 problems are related.

The issue is competing market and techniques. Existence of a better technique or market, drive all the good deals to the better market. That left only the worst of the worst in the original market.

In the absence of a better market, we can often found gems in the original market. In ancient time, before the existence of credit rating, we can indeed shake hand and get an agreement and get paid.

Sometimes deals go well. Sometimes not. On average, because there is no better way anyway, we still make money. Because we only lend money to those we know, chance is we still get good payment rate and things still go well.

Kong Fu Chu said that it’s better to be betrayed by your friends than not to trust them. Around 2500 years ago, he could be right. That guy was pretty wise folks, for his time.

But things were not really better in the past. Interest rates were way higher. People were poorer. One reason is because lender needs to charge higher rates to compensate for the deadbeat borrowers.

Then we got credit rating and enforced contract. Any potential borrowers that are responsible to pay do not mind putting their neck on their mouth is. In exchange of that they get lower rate.

That left only crooks on the “shake hand” market.

The result is both way. In one way interest rates drop. Those who pay their loan got good credit rating. Overall credit market becomes more efficient. We all become more prosper.

But yea, you just don’t shake hand anymore. Those who insist on not signing contracts are usually the worst of the worst due to this adverse selection problem.

Shake hands, that used to be profitable, become bad.

The same way with religions.

Imagine a world where there is no rule not to steal from others. We would all steal from each other. Then we would all be poor. Well, our ancestors were indeed far poorer than us don’t they? That’s because they do not have rules against stealing and robbing from each others’ tribes.

However, on local level, things sort of work out. Tada, fortunately someone tell our ancestors, rightfully or wrongfully, that God wants us not to steal from each other.

In ancient time, there is no science or game theory. Saying God says so is the only way to convince people. So rules that bring prosperity, like not stealing, do come out of religions. Societies with better rules grow stronger.

Faith wasn’t that bad. If the idea was bad, then countries that practice it would be out of biz, replaced by “better” countries that embrace better ideologies. Of course, in ancient time, ideologies simply mean religions.

Religions spread along with the might and prosperity of those who follow it. “Bad” religions that suggest unfair laws that encourage stealing for example, get mowed down by societies that is fairer.

When it comes to encouraging prosperity, and cooperation, religions used to do quite a good job, for its time. All religions that are common nowadays are religions that used to sort of “work.”

Then something happen. A new market of idea show up called science. Well science and internet I suppose, where everyone gets ideas and information more quickly.

Knowledge and truth that used to be elusive become easy. Ease of information flow facilitates better cooperation resulting in more wealth.

Unlike religious ideas that are often hard to test, scientific data are much easier to verify. We now have the power to store, process, and distribute info way beyond what our ancestors can.

Bad ideas simply disappear under the light of this information. As time goes by, only the best of the best theories and ideas show up. If ideas are false or doesn’t work, it’s gone quickly.

Nowadays, Nobel Prize winners on economic and experts at game theories explain to us what the right ideology is based on math.

Because of that, overall things are going well. Technology becomes more advance.

That being said, those who have the best ideas no longer used religions to justify their point. We no longer need 10 commandments to convince us that free market rules sort of work. Free market works because, well, duh….

But then what would those with the worse of the worse idea go? What about those who care only to motivate the rest of us to sacrifice our interests for theirs? Obviously they can’t use science. So where did those ideas go? Religions.

Those who only want to screw everyone else demand that their ideas are respected and held sacred by everyone. Why? Because if we do not think that their ideas are sacred, we would question it and we would see that they’re just screwing us.

Before, even good ideas are held sacred. Now, only the worst of the worst ideas are held sacred. Good ideas do not need sacred status because it can easily withstand the scrutiny of scientific light.

Proponents of those ideas don’t care if people are cursing their ideas. They’re right anyway and want the light to shine more brightly so everyone can see how right they are.

Overall things get better. We become more prosper.

It’s just that as our knowledge shine and shine more brightly religious ideas simply get worse and worse.

Should We Pick Women that Want Us for Our Money

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

Are those women really that bad?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s analyze this further

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

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

Which one should you choose?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence, The short answer is YES

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

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

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

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

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

If you want freebies, I can understand. If you want romance, you’re in a great danger. Better girls that want you for your money than girls that want to separate you from it. The latter is called wife.

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

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

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

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

Your life your choice. Use your left brain.

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

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

Why Prostitution is Illegal

There are many reason why prostitution is illegal.

Political correctness often swing in favor of the strong or status quo. Just ask the Cherokee.

In many trades, the interests of consumers and sellers are less strong than the interests of disgruntled inferior competitors and “politically correctness” goes to the opposite than the “normal” direction.

Such samples are consuming products made in China, hiring illegal immigrant, and smuggling goods before globalization. Any welfare economic expert would agree that free trades is good for at least the buyers and sellers, if not society as a whole, and that’s the very reason why it’s prohibited.

It’s the same reason why the process of acuiring land through bloodshed, deceit, force, and war is called holy wars, by holy warriors, for holy land, while the process of buying land consensually and peacefully is called speculation, by lowly speculators, which is often illegal.

After all, those holy warriors are the one writing the holy books and not like the rest of us want to test their wrath.

It’s the same reason why books and teaching that motivate people to become terrorists and murderers, and books that bring war, poverty, and famine are called holy books while good books with far more evidence and math support just have normal status, or even considered heretical.

For that same reason, in a sense, prostitution is more “fair”, consensual, efficient, pareto optimal, satisfactory, and meritocratic than standard marriage and that’s the very reason why governments prohibit it while religions sanctify the latter.

Existance of better fair and explicit market free from fraud or force drive good people with good offers to those market, leaving only the worst of the worst in the bad market. The worst of the worst then want to eliminate the better market so they can get higher chance of a better deal despite their worse offers they can give in return.

The alternative to prostitution is marriage. Well marriage is different than prostitution.

Just look at the deals people read in marriage:

1. For better or worse – That is, we buy a cat in the bag. We don’t even know the quality of the deal, what we’re getting, and what we’re paying. Ask Tiger Wood or Beatty Chadwick.
2. Till death do us part – Long term contract rather than dividing it into smaller contracts. This turns repeated prisoner dillema games into one big prisoner dillema game. The latter always end up bad within a proper definition.
3. Forsake all others – Against the principle of competition. Without competition there is no intensive to perform.

And that’s just what we see. Most of the deal are hidden somewhere deep within marriage laws written by feminazis and religious bigots that sort of or at least may want things to go really wrong for rich smart males.

Let’s examine the cat in the bag aspect first.

Then look at what happen in insurance industry. Looks like we can find a simple analogy.

A market where we buy a cat in the bag is a fragile market.

“George Akerlof in The Market for Lemons notices that, in such a market, the average value of the commodity tends to go down, even for those of perfectly good quality. Because of information asymmetry, unscrupulous sellers can “spoof” items (like software or computer games) and defraud the buyer. As a result, many people not willing to risk getting ripped off will avoid certain types of purchases, or will not spend as much for a given item. It is even possible for the market to decay to the point of nonexistence.” –

Why the market is fragile?

“The potentially ‘adverse’ nature of this phenomenon can be illustrated by the link between smoking status and mortality. Non-smokers, on average, are more likely to live longer, while smokers, on average, are more likely to die younger. If insurers do not vary prices for life insurance according to smoking status, life insurance will be a better buy for smokers than for non-smokers. So smokers may be more likely to buy insurance, or may tend to buy larger amounts, than non-smokers. The average mortality of the combined policyholder group will be higher than the average mortality of the general population. From the insurer’s viewpoint, the higher mortality of the group which ‘selects’ to buy insurance is ‘adverse’. The insurer raises the price of insurance accordingly. As a consequence, non-smokers may be less likely to buy insurance (or may buy smaller amounts) than if they could buy at a lower price to reflect their lower risk. The reduction in insurance purchase by non-smokers is also ‘adverse’ from the insurer’s viewpoint, and perhaps also from a public policy viewpoint.

Furthermore, if there is a range of increasing risk categories in the population, the increase in the insurance price due to adverse selection may lead the lowest remaining risks to cancel or not renew their insurance. This leads to a further increase in price, and hence the lowest remaining risks cancel their insurance, leading to a further increase in price, and so on. Eventually this ‘adverse selection spiral’ might in theory lead to the collapse of the insurance market.” –

So a market where we buy cats in the bags is fragile.

Because those market will be filled by those offering the worst deals. So only those with the least bargaining position will go there. The average deals will keep going lower till eventually the market disappear.

Now let’s examine four market for mating.

1. Burqa market where all women wear burqa.
2. Normal marriage market, where we know how pretty and smart the girl is before marriage but then get stuck with her.
3. Women wearing less and less clothes or walk naked to attract mates.
4. Prostitution.

Notice that we’re evolving from 2 to 3. Notice that freedom always follow the higher number while “holy” norms always favor the lower number.

If all are equally legal and politically correct, which one will disappear?

Which of the 4 has the most cat in the bag effect?

The first of course. The Burqa market. The more cat in the bag effect, the more fragile the market is. So when people can choose between the 4, people will choose to move to a more explicit market.

Do you see a lot of women wearing burqa in countries where they are NOT required to?

Now which of the 4 has the least cat in the bag effect?

The prostitution of course. We know what we’re getting, say hand job. We know what we’re paying, say $100. If we want to add 3 years to life time contract we can. If we want to add severance clauses, we can. In fact, people are doing it and call it cohabitation agreement. Once it gets popular, I bet government will do something to prohibits it, or find an excuse in refusing to enforce it.

In normal marriage, we don’t know what we’re getting, and we surely don’t know exactly how much we’ll be paying. Hell in normal marriage we don’t even know what sort of deal we are actually agreeing too and what the exit clauses are. You can search Beatty Chadwick to get a better picture though.

“So this is the skank who wants “her” half of the $2.5M that they are keeping him in prison for? While she is long married off to her adulterous lover. Whore and Lover living together waiting for their big payday, while the chump husband rots away in jail. The State of Pennsylvania a willing accomplice in their great plan. An innocent man whose only crime was to say “I do”. ” –

If you want a marriage under “fair” terms then simply don’t. Marriage terms are simply unfair. And that’s very reason why it’s holy.

Now, what happens in insurance industry?

What happens is insurance company then find a way to find out the kind of deals they’re signing before giving insurance. Insurance companies, for example, usually ask you to perform some tests, including genetic tests, before deciding your rate.

This is kind of normal right? As buyers, we check the goods first before buying.

For the same reason, in “free” societies, people tend to move from Burqa market to Normal marriage market. People tend to pick the market where they know more about what they’re agreeing. If people can choose they will always go to the better more efficient and fair market where quality of the deals are more in the open.

The more you got to offer, the more likely you want customers to judge the quality of your offer so you can get better deals too in return.

The same way, the more proof you have on your point, the more you want people to examine it. That’s the way of science. To the opposite, the more you just want to trick others to screw themselves for your sake, the more you simply declare that your teaching is sacred, holy, beyond criticism, unquestionable, unexaminable, etc.

So if all are equally legal and politically correct, I bet, the prettiest girls will be in porn. Then, the ugliest of the ugly will wear burqa when they try to find a mate.

Of course no societies is absolutely free and that’s why we don’t move all the way to prostitution yet.

Then what?

Then governments got involved.

Governments prohibits insurance companies from discriminating based on genetic tests results.

What does it mean?

It means people offering better deals wants to move to the more efficient market but governments prohibits that.

If all are legal and equally politically correct, those with good genes obviously want insurance companies to discriminate based on genetic qualities so he can get cheaper insurance. That left those with bad genes on the market without genetic discrimination, whose price will be higher.

That means if insurance companies can discriminate it will discriminate. Insurance companies then want to move to more efficient market.

However, if only those with good genes are in the non-discriminate market, than the rate for those market will be bad too. Those who got little to offer will of course get bad deals too. So what would those bad people do?

They demand government that everyone must join the bad market.

So government prohibits insurance company from discriminating based on genes effectively eliminating the better more efficient market.

For the same reason, government prohibit prostitution, to encourage everyone to join the normal marriage market.

Well, that’s just a partial analysis.

So if we want to know why government prohibits prostitution, we can check insurance market for it and see the analogy.

What about if we want to know why government prohibits consensual women trafficking? We already have laws against slavery, rape, and fraud. Most women trafficking are done by women knowing the deal beforehand anyway.

So, why would anyone wants to create another law against consensual women trafficking?

Why would anyone wants to convict those involved in women trafficking even on cases where no slavery, rape, or fraud is involved?

Well, why would anyone wants to prevent globalization? I bet we’ll find another simple analogy.