Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor
Is to build great product and capture the whole market share.
The greatest evil is trade restriction.
Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor
Is to build great product and capture the whole market share.
The greatest evil is trade restriction.
Is Kemang in Jakarta.
The land was flooded once. It caused panic of the inhabitants. Due to metaphysical reasons not fully explainable by physics, it causes a certain spiritual imbalance best understood by those truly enlightened such as businessmen. The price of the land drop temporarily.
A group of people then use this opportunity to acquire the land. However, these are indeed holy warriors. They do not kill civilians, or soldiers. In fact they don’t kill anyone. They do not hurt, force, or point gun on anyone. They just pay damn cold cash and get the holy land.
For some reason, people do not think the process is holy. Some would actually want to criminalize the behavior. I wonder why.
There another land that is not so holy in my opinion.
It’s, you know, the Israel land in middle east.
There is trade restriction on that land where jews cannot buy that land. That alone pretty much rob 50% of the market value of that land from the original palestinians’ owner. Of course, not being able to buy land and facing constant pogroms, any minority groups will do whatever it takes to get things done.
So we see constant strive of lying, killing, murdering, cheating bullshitting by both sides that want that same land.
Yet, people thing that it’s holy land. The process of lying, killing, murdering, cheating and bullshitting is called holy war. The actors are called holy warriors. All those are according to mein kampf like books called holy books. Written by holy God.
Morality is written by assholes.
Those who rule others decide morality. Those who want to rule others are psychopaths. Those who do not are cowards.
If nobody got hurt and everyone is benefited, there is no need to call it holy. It’s when shit hit the fan that you need to justify to everybody that it’s actually a good thing. So you call it holy, sacred, or whatthefuckever it means.
I would disagree with what most people think as holy.
I think Kemang is far holier place than Jerusalem because those who acquire the land don’t hurt anyone. I think MOST place in the world is holier than Jerusalem.
But who am I that people would listen to me.
Based on the same principle, the holiest sex act is prostitution. No bullshit. No hypocricy. No lying. No stoning. No nonsense. No irrationality. No government intervention. No hidden terms. No prohibition of significant alternatives. No shit. No millions of idiots voting to decide what it means or whether you can do it with same sex partners or not. No collectivism. No political lobbying. No need to care what non target market think and feel about your deal. Just pure holy transaction.
Depending on your religious interpretation, as a christian, I would also say prostitution is no sin and no adultery either. Those who are married to hot wife may cause others to commit adultery and be a stumbling block for horny singles. In most western country, civil marriage is the worst because you effectively reward those who fuck your wife. No marriage, no sin. Jesus must be glad.
Getting married is like putting gold bar in front of your house, not locking the door, and advertise, steal from me. Not only you idiotically hurt your self, you pretty much cause others to steal. You lost money, they go to hell. Lose lose. Better to just buy lock and gun right? Shoot the thieves to death and it’s win win. The rest won’t steal, get a job, become a programmer, create a start up, invent better iPhones, capture the whole market share, and go to heaven. You keep your money and make even more money. Everybody become good guys. Everybody happy. God will be glad.
The holiest product is ganja. No harm. Huge fun. Cheap. Can be mass produced. Make people happy.
Unfortunately, my religion is capitalism. Anything considered holy by this most oppressed religion is often criminalized.
The US is better than european about this. They allow people and home owners to have gun. I enjoy reading web seeing thieves and robbers got killed and that makes me very happy. In the past I helped scan thieves conviction records and blast them all over the net to help preventing those vermins from ever getting a job. They steal again, there is always home owners shooting at them anyway. Hopefully, millions die.
In Indonesia, we’re not allowed to have gun. Now search for cikeusik and see what happened.
Indonesia have laws against incitement of religious hatred. It’s only another pretext to curb freedom of speech. As expected those who actually speak to kill innocents are not punished. It’s those criticizing the murderers are the one punished.
People that want to control others are just psychopaths. And those who aren’t, are just coward. If we understand that, facts and reality become obvious.
Fuck government. In self we trust.
Left to free market, there is no way any love based relationship on any area of life can survive. It’s just so inefficient. Many players can simply got more by offering the same thing and bid $1 higher and they won’t bid $2 higher because $1 is enough so they can save another $1. Currently there are too many market friction on free market.
We do not even know the market price of a woman’s sexual service. I know, not all are for sale. No need to explain that. Those who aren’t don’t matter anyway But kind of nice to be able to link your income and how pretty the girl you’ll get in a clear graph. It help keeps you motivated right?
My point is the following:
1. Government have certain “norms”. Monogamy, large alimony, lifetime commitment, exclusivity, that’s encoded in marriage.
2. Government claim that they don’t force their norms. You can always choose not to get married.
3. However, government recognize marriage and treat it differently than many other relationship.
You can’t have it both way. If you don’t force others to embrace certain life style you must not treat different lifestyles differently. If you treat different lifestyles differently then you are pressuring/forcing.
That one is obvious. Yes I am aware of how democracy works. This is the one area where democracy deviate from libertarianism. The majority of voters of course want to prevent commercialization due to competitive nature of commercialized relationship.
In libertarian world, the will of majority means absolutely nothing. Even if the majority of the people want to favor Christian marriage, it should mean absolutely nothing to anyone. If the majority of the people want monogamy love based (rather than commerce based) relationship, it would still mean absolutely nothing.
I guess that’s the key of our different. I am a libertarian and you’re a democrat.
Actually the bottom line is this:
Life time alimony, life time commitment, and obligation to support child not biologically yours is a really really REALLY stupid shitty deals.
When people are forced to pay a life time alimony, people said, well, it’s their fault, they chose that deal.
My whole point is that some terms in marriage is so shitty there is no way it’s done consensually by significant number of people. Let’s face that. Who want to agree to pay child support for kids that’s not his? If you got a girl friend that want to live with you, and say look, I agree to have sex with you, but if I got knocked up by some other guy you have to pay. Would you sign that contract?
Imagine if government is not in marriage business. Who would stipulate that kind of terms in his cohabitation contract? Seriously.
The thing almost nobody would make such shitty deals.
They do so because:
1. Alternative deals are taxed differently, illegal, or legally impossible. Those are sugar relationship, prostitution, contract temporary marriage, etc. In fact, the more similar the relationship is to marriage, the more illegal it is. Look at polygamy, for example. The farther away a relationship from marriage, the more it’s acceptable. Free sex and celibacy is legal because it doesn’t compete with marriage anyway.
2. The deal is not explicit. It’s one of those hidden contract deep inside the contract. It’s like McDonald saying that by eating in this restaurant you agree to be a life time slave and the deal is somewhere deep inside hundreds of page of “service agreement”. Normally, FTC, would crack down on this type of shit being unconscionable and not prominently displayed. Life time alimony deals is like that shady hidden terms.
3. They never make that deals. If government does not manage marriage, people would have to craft their own marriage contract. There is no way anyone would draft life time alimony deals when they draft their own contract. Women would simply ask for more money, and men would simply stipulate that the kid must be his. It’s win win for both side. Now such explicit cohabitation agreement is rare because of government heavy endorsement.
Government put a shit load of trick to trap people into marriage. That must go away.
I really have a hard time understanding it. Before Karl Marx complain that workers should get full benefit of their labor rather than having to share it with politicians and land owners.
Contemporary capitalistic society is close to that. Look at Mark Zukenberg. He started as a poor student and become billionaires by working on his start up. That seems like pretty pro workers system to me.
Capital owners that buy Mark stocks actually lost money. Capital owners have to take huge risk or accept very low return now due to abundance of capital. Capitalism is ironically far more friendly to workers than capital owners.
Yet there is this thing called income tax. It tax money from workers. The money goes to politicians. Politicians use it for 3 things.
1. Squander it. They get money by ruling the land through voters seizing money unfairly from hapless programmers, start up founders, and other workers. From presidential airforce one to welfare recipients. All got money through political mean rather than working productively to earn their fair share.
2. Build infra structure that increase land price hence benefiting land owners.
3. Control it inefficiently to their whim such as creating public schools.
I mean what is so pro worker about contemporary socialism?
There is one socialists I may sympathize with. Henry George. Tax land, pay dividend to everyone. Henry agreed with Adam Smith on most issues beside that.
While I do not agree with him on many issue, I think he got some right idea. Things like land or oil are not produced by any humans. It make sense to split that out equally rather than killing each other for it.
Henry solve the 3 problems efficiently
1. It eliminate income tax keeping workers fully (or almost fully paid).
2. It takes money from land owners that are indeed benefited the most from public infra structure that increase their size.
3. By giving cash divident to population, it eliminates inefficiency of government. Before, inefficient public school is there because people have no choice. Under capitalism, only the most efficient school will get funded like what it normally is under free market capitalism. Soon that efficient school will become every school.
There are many source of income that doesn’t distort the market so much. Government can tax gasoline to reduce polution. Government can auction off radio frequencies. Government can tax usage of brand. Government can tax advertising. Best of all government can tax political campaign. It’s zero sum game anyway with every dollar spent by one side will cost the other side 1 dollar. Best of all, the world can tax weapons. Every weapons one country make will make other country relatively weaker we’ll all be better off if those weapons got less and workers got more.
Tax workers and the best workers will flee to other places. Tax land, and where do you think those land will go?
I mean it’s not about right and wrong here. It’s about profit for all of us. Countries that have low tax and low crime rate will attract investor and increase land price. So it’s natural that the people in that country got rewarded for that. Kind of proper alignment kind of thing.
I am not saying you’re not right or anything. It’s not my opinion. Look at that quora link. That’s how many OTHER thinks.
But then again it’s not unique.
1. She has no say -> rape -> wrong -> but you marry her -> okay
2. You give her money -> prostitution -> wrong -> but you marry her -> okay
Somehow, people think that something become okay when you marry her first. Strange isn’t it? How the hell that one stupid word called marriage that shouldn’t be defined by government anyway change people’s perception?
In most area of life where gene pool survival is at stake, your emotion is “smarter” than your rational if, and only if, the goal is to maximize reproductive success. Hell, even religions provide better strategy than rational mind.
Maximizing reproductive success is an important goal because it explains why people behave the way they do. That is, those who are around now are descendants and hence similar to those who maximize reproductive success in the past.
That’s why religious people and emotional people breed more kids. That’s why John Galt doesn’t.
Exception is if you understand game theory or political theory, which often provide the same recipe your feeling would have told you to. Of course for rational mind to outperform emotion or religion, the goal must be gene pool survival. Most of us are not rationally maximizing our reproductive success. We just follow our feeling and got “accident” and somehow become fathers or mothers.
Most of what people do that you think is stupid is actually very smart if you presume that their goal is reproductive success and you know the actual game behind it.
Buying a swiss watch for $30k sounds stupid. But then it signals wealth that attract hot babes. Killing people for defying religious opinion sounds stupid. But then again it asserts control and humans naturally want power. Prohibiting commercialization of sex sounds stupid. However, the consequence of commercialization is extermination of those who can’t compete. Now look again at pictures of feminazis. Do they look very competitive to you? Most libertarian feminists are pretty and most radical feminists are ugly. Not a coincident.
The closest ancient philosophy that got it realistic is Yin Yang and Taoism. Javanese also have some good philosophy. I mean realistic doesn’t mean it’s smart. Among western philosophy I like game theory, and evolutionary psychology.
Math and engineering is fine but they don’t answer directly how to win the gene pool games.
Say somebody says you’re guilty. Or say somebody says you’re “wrong” or evil.
The first thing that’ll come up in your mind is not, “is it true?”
Think about it. Who cares it’s true or not. The statement doesn’t even pass the disprovable test. You can’t ask most political argument in sceptic stackexchange. What they said has no truth value. I mean, name one political statement in favor or against anything. I am not saying it’s false. Think for a while if it actually means anything at all scientifically.
The first thing people realize when they are said to be evil is how to make people believe differently.
If people think I am evil I am death.
Ask the jews that survived death camp. What matters is not facts, but beliefs, and words change beliefs.
So people kill for words. That looks like a very smart strategy for me. Evil. Yes. Stupid? No.
I still remember a humor where an engineer is about to be guillotined and the guillotine is stuck. All the other prisoners are freed already because the executioner think it’s God’s intervention. The engineer, however said, “I think I know what’s wrong.”
If the whole world think that God want all of you to give me $1000, trying to explain the truth is stupid. It’s way smarter to actually promote the idea, and kill the infidel.