Reasoning is Futile

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

There is a general that is rumored to say, I don’t care if economy go back 30 years I want chinese to get out of the country.

However, recently that same guy pick chinese vice governor and won. Hmmm…. Perhaps it’s just libel.

Hatred is part of agenda Mike. People already hate each other (like you hate christians). They just make religions to justify the hatred.

And people believe all sort of nonsense. Global warming is one such nonsense. Drug war is another.

Anyone can just look at wikipedia and see that ganja is not dangerous. Yet they keep believing that it is. Most of them are not ganja users and hence don’t care.

Anyone can just look at statistic to see most prostitution is not coerced. Yet they keep believing that it is. Most of them are not prostitute. Hell, most of those feminazis are ugly they make more money writing against prostitution than becoming one themselves. Of course they do that.

So what? What is so specially stupid about religion?

When people decide what OTHER’s best interest is, they have very little interest to be accurate. People are only accurate for their own interests.

Whatever justify their beliefs. When religion is gone, it’ll be replaced by feminism, or socialism or other things.

I do not see religion as unusually evil. I believe in check and balance. We are all wrong no matter what the reasoning is because it never is about reasons or facts. It’s just our interests.

But with democracy we can only be wrong so much because everyone got only 1 vote anyway. Most of the wrong tend to cancel each other out. The end result is far from ideal, but better than say 50 years ago.

Do people fight over religion or over resources?

I think you can learn behaviorism or evolutionary psychology. Behaviorism doesn’t even care whether humans can think or not.

So in a sense Mike and John is right. John is right the issue is indeed resources. If we judge by what people choose, the issue is resources. Here resources include prestige, pride, etc.

However, Mike is right too. Many religious leader do believe that they really are doing their sky God’s will. However, that God’s will always coincide with the interest of the religious leader.

1. The mass is religious. The higher up you are the more realistic you are.
2. The decision maker may either be religious or a psychopath. Doesn’t matter, they behave exactly the same way.
3. The conflict is indeed about resources. Resources include women, land, prestige, or simply desire to be ubber alles or power.
4. The way religious come into play is to deceive the mass to support the resources controlling.
5. Humans greed is infinite, especially the male. Maybe it’s not obvious in monogamous western civilization where you only have 1 wife anyway. In most other societies, including in upper class western society, rich greedy males do mate with many women. Kenedy, for example, have many mistresses. In western civilization this aspect is simply less obvious, but it’s there.

Now here is the tricky part. Even though the real issue is resources, people act as if the issue is the sky God. In fact, the actor themselves are often not aware of that they’re just selfishly gathering resources. Yap, they deceive themselves too. Here you need to define what people want based on what actually correctly predict their behavior rather than what they say the believe in or what they actually believe in.

Basically humans have instinctive tendency to believe beliefs that justify his interest irrelevant of truth. The idea is by truly believing his own BS, they may make others believe too and his interests are maintained.

Sample: Bob is a psychopath religious leader.

Ah these muslims are paying me halal certificate. In Indonesia, halal certificate can be expensive with the high rank cleric demanding money for traveling to another country. It’s also used to justify blocking importing chicken leg from US to protect Indonesian’s chicken industry.

Bob will say, if I honestly tell people that I want to protect local chicken industry that put money on my pocket, they wouldn’t support me. So I just say that the sky god did it.

Charlie is truly religious. He behaves exactly like Bob. He too will demand large money from chicken industry and would block import. However, unlike Bob, Charlie “truly” believe that he is doing the sky God’s work. Why shouldn’t he? He lost nothing by believing his sky God’s theory. Truly believing his own justification can help him justify it to others.

To test the theory you only need to see that whatever people say they believe in tend to coincide a lot with their interests. In fact, if you truly know humans real utility function, nothing is surprising anymore.

Some of the Our Ideas

There are many pro legalization prostitution posts here. Actually this blog is not mainly about that. Here is the main ones:

Main idea

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.


Then what?

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.


Ideal Relationship

@Steven, I personally don’t believe in love. I suppose it’s people’s right and in some cases it does work. The problem is when government declare that non love based relationship is illegal. That’s the issue.

That’s genocide against all rational men that don’t believe in love like me.

I believe in selfishness. Only terms that properly align individuals interests to common interests would work. That means:

1. Don’t pick singles. Pick best sellers.
2. Don’t commit for a life time. Split deals into small pieces for ease of enforcement.
3. High salary, low severance pay.

I think all relationship should be like that. For some reason, civil marriage is on the opposite spectrum of common sense.

Why Government Shouldn’t Have Power to Define Marriage?

Marty got a point.

The issue is not really the sanctioning per se… The issue is government can effectively tell women don’t choose Bob, choose Charlie instead. In US, that’s what government do if Charlie is single. In muslim countries that’s what government would do if Charlie is muslim.

Imagine if government has power to tell customers don’t buy iPhone, buy Samsung instead? Apple and Samsung won’t bother doing R&D to build better phones. They just bribe government official. The same way men don’t bother offering best offers for women. They just pay religious leaders, and feminazis to rule in their favor. Many hot babes are then underpaid.

However, once government has power to sanction and define who is barber, psychologists, etc. government will have that power to effectively alter consumer behaviors. Better barbers that don’t pay up bribe will be declared to be non barber, for example.

It’s probably not clearly seen in barber or programmer. It is indeed clearly seen in marriage.

Even if government can sanction marriage, it’ll be tolerable if all commercial sex outside marriage have the same status as marriage. It’s not. It’s just not the way government work.

Why Prostitution is Illegal?

I used to believe it’s most of it. After I learn evolution theory, my estimate is more like 1%. Street hoes are not having a good time. However, under free market, ugly women are not going to have a good time in any occupation. The pretty one are obviously better off.

Physically threatening prostitution is far from necessary. It’s rape. It’s so easy for prostitute to tell johns.

Of course there is prostitution that’s “like” marriage like sugar relationship. Those women are not forced in anyway. Becoming sugar babies will allow them to more easily pick the rich. Currently any explicit contract between them and the sugar daddy is illegal.

However, that can be circumvented by splitting “the contract” into smaller pieces. The sugar daddy keep paying only if she keeps humping. Most relationship in Asia is effectively sugar relationship.

Marriage in any country sucks. Marriage laws are designed to turned off the richest smartest most attractive males. Monogamy turn off the attractive. Alimony turn off the rich. Any women that’s not excessively gold digging would prefer sugar relationship than marriage.

The issue that’s important here is not how much you “love” her or via versa. The more important issue most selfish individual care about is how much you can offer.

It’s like business. Under free market you’re not judged based on your determination. You’re judged based on your result.

The same way under free market, women are judged by their beauty rather than sincerity, and males are judged by their wealth rather than love.

Obviously ugly women and poor men won’t have it. So we have game balancing.

It’s all part of the game. Yin Yang.

Pretty Blonde Girl with Korean Businessmen that Hire Her

If those businessmen were married, they are “betraying” their wife. If those businessmen were single, people would say the men are so undesirable they can’t attract a wife and no women would want that kind of male and hence prostitution must be prohibited. Looks like something is always wrong when rich smart males get the girls.

You know what, I think those pretty blonde and the korean businessmen are meant for each other. They want each other right? Case closed.

It’s so cruel to separate them. How could anyone? Hiks hiks…. I am crying here. Two (or up to 20) lovers, wanting each other yet separated by cruel laws. I thought we don’t have this anymore.

What would you do if you really like a girl and the girl like you and then some guys say, don’t. You can’t do that. It’s bad. So it’s illegal. This is just like that.

Why Marriage Should be Prohibited

Robert, Charles, I totally agree with you. Here’s my side.

At first I support prohibition of marriage as “parody” to show how stupid prohibition of prostitution is. So yea, Robert is right. Charles is right.

However, after a while, I do see reasonable reasons:
1. Consistency. Why prostitution is illegal and marriage is sanctified? It’s like legalizing coca cola and criminalizing pepsi. What do you think Robert?
2. Prohibition of marriage hurt no body. If you want ANY commitment for ANY reason, there is always regular contract laws you can craft. Worst come to worst you can make it exactly the same like civil marriage.
3. Prohibition of marriage can be interpreted to mean blocking government from recoqnizing civil marriage. Government should not have any power to decide what marriage, rutabaga, or anything mean. It’s all up to individuals.
4. When civil marriage is gone, many similar arangements will show up replacing it. It’s easy for government now to prohibit those competing arangements. When civil marriage is gone, the difference between commitments as defined by civil marriage and other kind of commitments will blur and it’ll be much harder for government to prohibit one and legalize the other.
5. Most importantly, marriage is indeed sucks. There are many males whose whole life are destroyed due to marriage. I do not like this argument because it’s the exact same argument used to prohibit prostitution and it’s still up to individuals to choose. But there you have it. It’s still a reasonable argument anyway.
6. Prostitution is actually far more efficient than marriage. Most people would choose sugar relationship over marriage. Currently the latter counts as prostitution.

Why Marriage Should Go Away

Ancient marriage is closer to prostitution or sugar relationship by the way. Ancient marriage is not monogamy. It’s not life time. There is no lifetime alimony. It’s free from states’ intervention.

What’s evil is not marriage. What’s evil is governments role in “defining” marriage. That one must be outlawed. In fact, I think it’s already unconstitutional right?

The main reason I want civil marriage to be destroyed is for consistency with anti prostitution laws. If one is illegal, the other must be. Otherwise, that means government choose our life style.

It’ll be like taxing whites but not blacks. Ideally there is no tax. If there is, it should be taxed equally.

Ideally we don’t shoot at each other. If the other side shoot, we shoot back.

Ideally both prostitution and marriage must be legal. If one is illegal the other should be. If they want to make our life style illegal, we should make their life style illegal too. Tit for tat.

Government Want vs What You Want

There is what people want and what government want. Raising kids, commitment, and determination of fatherhood is what people reasonably want.

What government want is to comply to the will of voters of preventing rich smart males from banging too many hot babes. Getting married means others’ interests will have to influence your decision outside market mechanism. Hence you’re not maximizing your profit. Now that’s what’s wrong according to me.

Many actually defend it. They would argue, correctly that if too many males are single, there will be too many criminal. That’s true. Factually I agree. And that’s all I want to show, what’s the problem really is.

Whether that justify all this bullshit prohibiting consensual acts like prostitution or sugar babies is something people can decide themselves once they understand what’s the real problem is.

Somebody will have many women anyway. It could be studs that bang someone else’ wife. It could be some welfare parasite that just breed like rabbit. What do they have that typical millionaire doesn’t?

balls. They got balls. They’re willing to screw the norm. When success is immoral, only immoral people are successful.

Prohibiting men from being promiscuous is like prohibiting men from being rich. Some will be successful anyway, at expense of others.