There are many pro legalization prostitution posts here. Actually this blog is not mainly about that. Here is the main ones:
War should be replaced by politic and politic should be replaced by commercialization.
Yap you guess it. That means commercialization of sex, drugs, organs, land (such as for countries with land dispute), and so on. At the end everything should be commercialized.
Reason is close to useless in politic
Humans are inherently subjective. We care about our interests, not truth. If a certain belief support our interests, we will defend that no matter how wrong it is. Hence, reasoning is futile.
Do I have to argue with you if I like iPhone more than android or via versa? No. It’s my money. I decide and that’s it. What we have is check and balance. If a price is too high I don’t buy. If feature is too low I don’t buy. If things don’t go the way I like it.
Now imagine if government start mandating reason. You can’t buy iPhone if the reason is racist, for example. That’ll just give government a bunch of ammo to pretty much decide who you will buy from. At the end humans will simply bribe officials rather than inventing better phone. Then we will all end up becoming politicians or warriors to be the one in power rather than serving the market. We will all be better off.
So reasoning is fine. But I wouldn’t count too much on it. Any welfare parasites will demand bigger tax. Any failing people will demand bigger government. Any uncompetitive people will demand trade restriction. Any ugly women will want to prohibit porn. Any poor male will want prostitution illegal. Any single will want to prohibit polygamy. Any diligent people will oppose income tax.
It’s not about fair or not fair. It’s about what each individuals want.
I don’t really care if people vote one thing out of another out of racism or religion or just plain stupidity. If that’s what they want, let them choose. Shit hits the fan we can always get out. Saying that drug is dangerous or that death penalty is not effective is just as stupid as saying that Thor tell me to prohibit porn. If that’s what you believe, vote for it.
If we let government decide that it’s wrong to vote for this or that reason, then things could go even worse. We simply have dictatorship and then we’ll kill each other again to be the dictator.
When Things Can’t be Fully Commercialized, Mimic Free Market as Much as We Can
Should government build public school? Simple. Ask each voters how much cash would they want if most government program are gone. Ask them if public schools are gone, but I give you cash, how much you want?
Those with many kids will put a high number. Those with no kids will put a low number.
Fine. Take the median, you got to win 50% vote right, and turn all those inefficient social programs into straight forward cash citizen dividend. The money comes from the saving.
How to deal with palestinian refugee? Israel don’t want them back because they don’t want muslims to outvote jews out of their country. Simple. Pay money for the land. Hell, recognize their right of return, and trade that right in free market. Most palestinians are not hell bent to fight jews. I am sure many will just sell and move the fuck on.
Government can only decide simple things
Look at patent office. It’s a reasonable claim. Protect inventor. Obviously we shouldn’t protect what’s obvious. What is obvious? You think government can differentiate that?
Because reasoning is almost futile, government effective IQ is very low. In that patent thingy, things are looking up because we all have some common interests. When our interests are total opposite our reasoning will be full of shit and our intelligence is very low.
Government can differentiate between consensual and not consensual. Perhaps there is some leeway, such as small printing and stuff. However, government cannot differentiate between degrading or exalting. If we let government sanction marriage because it’s sacred and then condemn prostitution because it’s degrading, then we push government do differentiate something way beyond it’s IQ.
You Can Measure Freedom by the Amount of Market Distortion
Imagine if you are not free. That means government, rather than you, decide what you will do.
How does government do that? By reward and punishment. They’re both somewhat equivalent. Reward is equivalent with punishing everyone that’s not rewarded and then give everyone equal compensation. Punishment is equivalent with rewarding everyone except those being punished and then tax everyone equally.
Say you like Coca Cola and dislike Pepsi. Say government want you to to choose Pepsi instead. Government would subsidize Pepsi and tax Coca Cola. That is equivalent with lowering price of Pepsi and raising price of Coca Cola. In fact, that’s what governments often do. They artificially set price up.
Imagine, if the price of Coca Cola is the same anyway with or without government declared price. Notice that this is impossible. That’s because if the price would really be the same, why would government alter price? However, say it is the same. Then what? There is little violation of freedom.
Governments understand that we evolve to instinctively recognize this. That’s why most government distortion often comes with some justification that government is not changing the price. That’s why we have the idea that drugs are dangerous and prostitution can’t be consensual. Government is effectively saying look, what you have is market price anyway. Of course that’s not true.
Why is this important?
If there are several different conflicting laws that interfere with individual freedom, which one should freedom loving people fight against most? The one with biggest market distortion.
Simple? You see why I talked a lot about prostitution? Because the market distortion is huge. Prostitute is a very well paid job. Prohibition of prostitution is effectively a price control that set the price to 0. I can’t find other vicious price control. The same goes for drug, which is fun, and organ donors.
Ignore most rhetoric concentrate on actual price distortion
If some robbers stab you in the back and take your wallet and then claim that he’s trying to perform apendix surgery, would you bother listening? I’d say, just shot the mugger.
Most of political rhetoric is just like that. They want to rob our freedom, run our life, and effectively enslave us. Rather than bother answering that they’re wrong, just look at their bargaining position. Vote the opposite way. Hurt them in anyway. Or leavel.
I don’t care if people prohibit me from watching porn out of genuine concern that it’s bad for me. They want to do that, means they want to enslave me. Period. I’ll just look at how bad that asshole is compared to the other party and peak the lesser evil.
The same way politicians can call something tax, punishment, fine, prohibition, or whatever. If it increases your cost function of a certain act, treat that as the same thing. Income tax is punishment for making income. Anti prostitution laws are maximum wage schemes. That’s it. Treat equivalent acts as truly equivalent.
Path to Freedom is Paved with Freedom
Yap. Rather than bitching about freedom we don’t have, we should be grateful with freedom we already have.
Take a look at the lowering of tariff due to globalization.
Before, government effectively decide how much each occupation earn. Government can, for example, decide that programmers have to compete with foreigners by allowing foreign programmers to come in. Government can raise price of bus driver by preventing immigrant.
Power to change who can come means power to change price. Power to change price is power to run your life.
Now, if immigrant can’t come to richer countries, then jobs are moving there.
Government will no longer have such power to manipulate price again. That means government doesn’t have power to run anyone’ life again. You are free to pick whatever occupation have the smallest supply and the highest demand and then enjoy all the money that comes with it.
The result is of course huge income disparity. That means you don’t have to be equal with your peer. You can choose to be much richer than that. Isn’t that cool?
It doesn’t stop there.
Imagine if there are 2 gas stations in a city. I will have huge incentive to blow up my only competitor’s station. However, imagine if there are 100 gas stations. Blowing up competitor’s station won’t help me get sales. People will just buy from another station anyway.
Before workers have incentive to block other workers from coming. If immigrants don’t come they can keep their higher salary. Due to globalization, it won’t help. Stuffs will be produced overseas and then re imported. Salary difference between foreign workers and local workers will be lower. This reduce incentive to keep immigrants out. So anti immigration laws tend to get less and less again.
First we have freedom to avoid tariff. Then we have freedom to hire whoever we want. More freedom. Win win solution because we win twice.
Be careful when we excessively condemn power holder from enjoying profit from their power
Karl Marx says that capital owner should not have any profit from their capital. It’s kind of extreme.
However, libertarians are pretty similar when it demands that those in power shouldn’t benefit from it’s power at all.
It’s just unrealistic. Power by definition means capability to get what you want. Obviously those in power will choose whatever max out their profit. Condemning profit from power will just encourage lies and hypocrisy. In fact, turn that into something market like.
Appeasing Karl Marx is simple. Let free market decide.
Now, if we count start up founders and programmers as workers, we can clearly see that free market is actually a very pro worker economic system. Bill Gates, for example, get rich not through saving money in the bank like capital owners. Bill Gates work, founding a successful company. Bill Gates, is a fellow comrade workers that happens to be more productive, and hence more richly rewarded by free market.
In fact, interest rate is dropping so well that anyone that put money on the bank that interest rate is actually negative. Some says it shouldn’t be negative, but that means another money for another worker, namely speculators. Happy Karl Marx?
So the issue is not ensuring that capital owners shouldn’t enjoy interest. Just let free market decide. Free market bring abundance. Capitals become abundance. So cost of money, instead of cost of labor goes down a lot. That means higher salary and lower interest rate. At the end it’s not far from what Karl Marx want.
The same goes for power holder. The issue is not ensuring that they don’t have any profit from their power. The issue is ensuring that there is far more money in capitalistic market than in political market.
How does that going to happen? Simple. Competition among power holders. Productive elements, will go from excessively oppressive power holders to less oppressive power holders. At the end there will be less and less profit for politicians and more and more profit for workers and businessmen (which are also workers). Karl Marx and libertarians should be happy.
One sample of successful such case is how Dubai run it’s immigration policy. It’s really simple. Each dubai citizen can recommend 3 foreigners. That recommendation can be bought and sold. So citizens get effectively free money. Immigrants don’t take people’s job in Dubai. Immigrants bring money for Dubai.
Is it fair that some guy get free money because he is Dubai’s citizen and yet this poor workers have to pay money? Well, not really. However, all these happen due to even bigger unfairness everywhere else. We can condemn Dubai for it’s “unfairness”. However, rather than doing that, I think we should encourage that.
Those immigrants are paid more in Dubai than what they would have paid if they work somewhere else. They are benefited. Dubai have helped more foreigners rich per capita than western world and they are having better time doing it. What happen is if there are more and more country like Dubai, workers will have more and more option to work for.
That means the market price for those recommendation will drop. That means more money for the actual productive workers again rather than for the lazy citizen. Also we need to credit Dubai’s government relatively free market as a productivity too. Right or wrong, it’s not necessarily a bad thing.
The same goes for corruption. Corruption is bad. I wouldn’t fight toe and nail against it as long as the people themselves are not pro freedom.
Good is relative
Democracy is not the same with freedom. It’s not the total opposite. Freedom brings prosperity which most people want. Any system that don’t lead to prosperity will tend to get voted out.
Rather than condemning democracy, simply recognize that voters do have power and make some deals where they can get rewarded from those power in ways that are less restrictive.
Dubai is a good sample of immigration policy. There are many other ways.
Get the win win part first
The productive want less tax. The parasite want higher tax. That’s almost a zero sum game. So what should we promote for?
A lot of happiness in the world is not there not because there isn’t resources to accomplish it but because of simple bigotry. Prohibition of fun is far more dangerous than just redistribution of wealth. Get rid that one first.
Take a look at porn, for example. It’s cheap to produce. But many don’t enjoy it.
The same with drugs. Save drugs can be mass produced cheaply. Legalization of drug is more important than lowering tax.
What about organ? Are you using your organ when you die? No. When people die, usually only one organ is messed up. The rest is wasted. People would rather keep that organ because they can’t sell it anyway. Allow them to sell those abundant unused organs will help prolong many life.
Yea prostitution is coming again. Prostitute is like porn. You have sex yet you don’t produce kids. Producing kids is what makes women expensive. Getting pregnant for 9 months and giving birth is taxing for women.
Women don’t really lost anything for having sex except their time. It’s cheap for them to produce sexual pleasure and men want to pay a lot for it. By principle of hit those with biggest distortion first, this prohibition should go.
What about redistribution of wealth? It’s zero sum. So circumvent it.
What really hurts in redistribution of wealth is not the redistribution itself but how the wealth redistributed encourage people to be losers.
Recipient of redistribution of wealth are those who are
1. Sick (nationalized health care)
2. Unemployed (unemployment benefit)
3. Irresponsibly breed (public school).
At the end, poor people don’t get helped by those redistribution of wealth. They can choose to be healthy but they don’t get money. They can get sick but well, that means they’re sick. Catch 2 2.
Why not give money to everyone equally. We don’t care you’re employed or not. Here’s your redistributed wealth. Bye….
Then the poor do not need to get sick unemployed or breed like rabbit to get money. They can just work.
Proper Alignment to Wealth Shouldn’t Be Far from Freedom
Take a look at a person’s interest. What max out your profit? Is that what maximize GDP? When the 2 differ, then we have problems.
In fact, I think meritocracy is more important than freedom. Freedom is just the most natural way to achieve meritocracy. Without freedom, it’s so easy for government to decide that learning bullshit in school is productive while producing drug is not. Only freedom allow us to judge that it’s not true from one simple measure, does it sell?
This is consistent with other principle above of measuring how bad something is based on market distortion.
Redistribution of Wealth maybe inevitable
Say I am poor. I am hungry. You steal my food. Without it I’ll die. What would I do? Kill you of course.
Say the country embrace free market and everybody is rich. Someone steal food. What would we do? Kill?
Killing is costly. It can bring bad karma. Those who kill may have some grudge and kill us again. Getting killed will be very costly if we’re rich.
As the world get more prosper people are richer. Cost of killing go up and up while cost of just pay the money go lower and lower. At the end voters tend to be lenient with redistribution of wealth.
If you really want to get rid of it, you can go to poorer but developing countries. Those countries need more productive elements more they can’t afford redistribution of wealth.
Actually another way to get rid of it is to encourage other countries to get rich too. That means when tax is too high in your area, you just jump out to another prosperous country. This will greatly reduce incentive to demand higher redistribution of wealth.
That’s why I love globalization so much. See, things are working out.
Till that time happen, yea, socialism will be there. But as trades will go more and more free, it’ll be less and less.