How morality evolve

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

This is how morality evolve. Me strong. You do what I say. You no do. I kill you. That’s been like this for thousands of years.

Then we got innovation. People figure out that if morality is like that, there would not be any sucker that do programming, put PC on every household, and pay taxes. So it’s more like, behind me there is God. That God wants you to do the exact same thing I want you to do. If you don’t believe, I kill you. That’s been going quite well.

But then people figure out that anyone can make the same lie and the mysterious God never did anything significant to tell which one is truly his prophet. It’s like the movie year 1. Abraham told that God told him that all the Israel land belongs to his descendants. However, God forget to tell everyone else so he got to fight for the land. Till now they still do. I mean if we are going to kill each other anyway wasting money, why need morality?

Eventually, a great prophet Adam Smith come bringing a divine commandment of free market. People can verify that those embrace free market get rich and those who don’t keep killing each other.

So we move up again and got prosper.

And then people see that free trades bring even more prosperity. Awesome… Then we got more and more prosper. We know more and more. Buddha predict that our life expectancy will reach 10k years. Rather than screaming tenno haika banzai, japanese can start screaming watashiwa banzai.

The pattern is, while we deceive each other, eventually we learn enough from one another to reach enlightenment and come up with a better solution. The future will be bright.

Simplifying Politic

This is some idea

All government intervention is a combination of tax and subsidy.

For example, minimum wage is tax for small business and subsidy for some privilege worker. Why privilege? When the price do not meet, somebody will be jobless and somebody will be overpaid. Who will be overpaid? Whichever is privileged.

Racist white people usually support minimum wage to keep blacks out of job, for example. Then job is not distributed by supply and demand but by various government regulation like affirmative action.

Here is another.

When people pay tax they think it’s still their money anyway.

What about if we presume that rather than maximizing wealth people maximize power. Power in politic is like wealth in business. Let’s see controlship to “effective ownership”.

Now analyze the same thing again.

Who control the money before tax? You. Who control the money after taxation? Government official. Is it strange that government official squander it for vacations? For all practical purpose it’s as if they OWN the money. Hey, in a very practical sense, they really own it more than we own our own body. They have POWER over it.

Tax is the transfer of power from you to government. Marriage, like tax, is the transfer of power from you to government. Simple? Giving power is like giving money. It’s like giving your car keys. It’s for all practical purpose like giving your whole cars. The difference is whether you punish them if they runaway. You can’t punish government right? So yap. It’s really like giving.

Ah but not all of money spend on Obama is spent on blowing his cock. Agree. Not all money I earn is spent on blowing my cock. I invest most to make more money. The same way, Obama spent most of money he control to have more power in the future. For example, government would invest money on better bullshit. Things like telling people that ganja is illegal or whatever.

You see. Politic is just like business. We just need a few words equivalent (power in politic is like wealth in business) and the same business common sense can be used to analyze politic.

WHat else?

Yea maximum wage. Imagine if government institute maximum wage rather than minimum wage. Who would complain? Who would support? What kind of workers would cheer and what kind of workers would oppose? Would programmers like that? Would liberal art majors like that?

Organ donor is like maximum wage for selling organ. There are many things you can donate but can’t sell. That’s like maximum wage. Of course, maximum wage and minimum wage is like subsidy and tax. Just see who effectively got subsidy and see who effectively pay extra tax.

For example, if government institute maximum wage, CEO and programmers would protest but low class workers would rejoice because they would expect that money gone from those CEO will enrich them. Actually it’s not quite like that given that there will be fewer job creator and too many people wanting to do simple menial tasks. However, that’s what privilege come into play.

Trade restriction is like maximum wage. If you can donate but cannot sell, that means the maximum wage is 0. Now prohibition of sex trade will be cheered by most ugly women who cannot earn money via trading sex anyway. They hope that money men spent on porn will go feeding them instead. Of course this hurt the interests of really really hot babes.

Actually, money don’t really come to ugly women. What happen is, males will have less incentive to get laid and everybody lost. Hmm… I think I need to take into account elasticity here. After all humans always produce equal number of sons and daughter irrelevant of price.
And what about government regulating our life prohibiting consensual crime? Easy. They control us right. Control-> own…. So we are slave….


I think the biggest problem with all philosophy is that many things with the exact same game structure are just called differently and somehow target different emotion. C’mon. Start seeing the same thing as the same and we can use stuff we understand on what we are familiar with with stuff we don’t.

Don’t Let Others’ Opinion Hurt Your Success

Hei, I am not saying I am a likeable guy. However, that’s the point.

When I was young, many said I am stupid. Then after I ace some math competitions, they said I am too different to ever make money. Then I started a business. Even after money coming my family would get mad because I do not have a job. Think about it. A programmer costs $400 in Indonesia, and I had a business bringing in $5k residual income per month. Why would anyone think I should work? That doesn’t change people’s mind. You do it. You did it. Many will still think it can’t be done.

I closed my ears and keep going. Then people said I won’t get laid. I didn’t care to be honest. At that time I wanted marriage, after I am rich. I wanted to be a responsible dad and raise a family with 2-3 children after I am richer.

Then I read evolutionary psychology. I got to learn that first because I knew absolutely nothing about women. Again, my family was mad when I said I think I could get some of the hot babes from my high school. One became my wife and the other wanted to divorce her husband but cannot. The rest are not in my country.

Then I wanted to destroy all marriage.

Then GDP says I won’t be able to do it. People said I am evil. You didn’t know what length does other males go and what rules they bent to get laid. Compared to most males I am a saint. At least I respect women’s freedom.

So if people bitch about how they are held back by lack of expectation. Fuck them. Objectively at least.

But hei, they’ll keep doing it. After all, bitching works. Ah… these people don’t make as much money as jews. Hmm.. He must be underprivileged. Well, too many, out of envy and bigotry (as predicted by evolutionary psychology) gave them credit for that kind of nonsense. They did get hands up due to their bitching.

I would bitch too if I were them 🙂 Why shouldn’t they? It’s part of the fucking game. You can stay libertarian all your life. Or you can just play their game. Play fucking harder. If I have to sacrifice success or morality, I’ll gladly scrap the latter. Morality is just an excuse for failing. Being moral in unfair world means being unfair to one’s self anyway. That’s the ultimate immorality. As Ayn Rand said, unearned guilt.

Can we Stop Judging Anyone and Start Understanding

Can we stop judging anyone here and for once just try to understand the world the way it really is?

Hitler is an asshole. But he’s not the only racist at his time. If jews sell opium, I can’t blame them either. We all do whatever it takes to get rich (not to mention that opium should be legal).

The problem, the root of ALL evil, is trade restriction. Everyone do evil thing because those in power, rather than those who produce, are the one that decide things. It damages the harmony that’s naturally happen. I once asked if we should kill those who insult free market.

I was joking of course. My point is, we are such a coward that we “respect” an ideology simply because it’s supported by hordes of violent terrorists and yet do not give the same respect to ideologies that’s so awesome it has made all of us rich.

I think, ideologies, are like living organism too that deserve justice. If we do not kill those who insult free market, we also shouldn’t respect any other idea that “perform” less any higher respect. Then, let’s the best idea proliferate. Can anyone tell me what TED stand for? Just curious.

Why Sugar Relationship Should be Legal and Why Love is Utter Bullshit

We do not need love of a woman as much as we do not need our business partners, employees, and employers to love us.

Try say, “I want employee that work for me because he loves me rather than because of wanting salary.” See how far you go in business.

Our behavior shows that. Divorce rate is more than 50%. Paternity fraud is more than 30%. Most women are single moms.

Obviously western romantic love where you aim for one special someone for the whole of your life is not working for everyone (if anyone at all).

Yet many alternative life styles are prohibited or illegal.

I’d say we should commercialize and legalize all form of consensual reproductive strategy. It should be up to individuals to decide what offers are best.

I personally believe that the real reason why prostitution is illegal is because Johns and sugar daddies simply pay way more than husbands and boy friends. Many women simply prefer those than being girlfriends or johns. Maybe I am wrong. Why not let the women decide?

It’s simply wrong to say that women that become prostitutes do not have choices. They often do, namely getting married to mediocre. However, they prefer an even better choice than that. That is the real reason why it’s prohibited.

Also ugly feminazis are jealous with hot women that can easily make money from the rich selling sex. That’s also why they hate porn, and prostitution. They too want to be sex object, but they aren’t.

The fact shows that every time selling sex for cash is legal, it’s quite popular with little consensual issue even among those that obviously ave choices.

Even high IQ women want to be porn star. It’s not hard to think that some high IQ hot babes would want to be prostitute too when it’s legal.

I Don’t Believe in Love

I don’t believe in love as much as I don’t believe in any other irrational bullshit people spew. I don’t understand why so much hostility over something I don’t believe in?

I think romantic love is like mein kampf. It’s used to justify committing genocide against those who simply don’t give shit. If we rationally plan our reproductive strategy along money, genetic quality, and things that actually make sense, then it’s illegal because it’s not “love”.

I don’t need women to love me. I want women that want to bear my baby. I don’t care if a woman is whore. I care she is pretty. If you like love so much go find that kind of girl. I don’t think they exist and 50% divorce rate in US should show that this is obvious. Just don’t get in the way of me finding what I like.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with what women want. The idea is, if a woman want it, she can. Whether there is any women that want it or not is a different issue. I think 80% would.

Why Things Should Be Measured by Money

Sorry I’ve been busy and to be frank, I got to reduce talking in linked in. It’s too addictive.

How to control abuse, crime, etc. of citizen trading?

The same way you control abuse, crime, of stock trading. In short, you don’t unless on highly exceptional circumstances.

Who have the power to issue citizenship? Well, we can start with those that are in power in the first place. The people in democratic country. The sultan in monarchy.

Basically we are giving soft landing to those dictators so they move on to something else, like making real corporation and earn profit productively.

We are told that tyrants are evil and voters are stupid. The thing is, they are all maximizing their profit. It’s not easy to be tyrant. You need talent, and political skills.

Those who get rich by being tyrants can also get rich by being in business. Those who seizes land by war can also get that same land buy just buying. However, they picked the dark path due to lack of commercialization.

The problem with the world is not that we’re too selfish, apathist, and immoral. The problem is we care too much about others that will actually be better of left alone. Our moral standard is too damn high it’s simply not realistic. People see that the way to get what they want productively is blocked they went berserk.

Too many people think money is bad and root of all evil. The truth is the opposite. If not money, how do we decide who got the stuff? War? Political bullshit?

Money, and love of money, is what have kept us together. It’s what makes people that naturally hate each other cooperate productively with each other. Look at China and Taiwan. We have far more reason to kill each other than arab and jews. Why don’t we? Are we nicer guy? C’mon. We’re all humans. Money. We love money. That’s why we’re in peace.

What happens to israel and arab? They don’t love money enough. That’s why they kill each other. Imagine if palestinians demand money rather than right to return (and hence right to rule the jews by voting), problem would have been solved. Those jews got way more money than the market price of some worthless desert with no oil.

Measure everything in money and trade. Do it slowly. See how it goes. So far, so good.

Why the Poor Have More Children Than the Rich?

The answer is very obvious. Government intervention.

Who says the poor can’t afford more children than the rich? Have you take into account political costs and political subsidy?

The poor can afford infinite number of children due to welfare. A billionaire can hardly afford more than 5 due to child support rules that set man’s obligation to be proportional to man’s wealth/income.

In fact, imagine if government says that all chultu worshippers will get subsidy if they have children and all flying spagethy monster will have to pay $50k child support per month per child. I bet chultu worshippers will produce far more children than worshippers of flying spagethy monster.

That’s exactly what happen between rich men and poor men. The fact that the rich men are richer somewhat mitigate the effect, but not by much, and not fully.

It’s too costly for the rich to have children. Yet the poor can have many children due to subsidy.

Just look at this:
‘Feckless father’ of 17 facing life in jail for murder – Telegraph

A poor man can father 17 children. There. No body jailed him for being deadbeat. No women bother suing him for child support. No feminazi complain that all those women are being abused. No one raise the issue that he doesn’t, obviously, spend enough time with each of his child. Nothing.

An unemployed man can, in a sense, afford unlimited number of children because tax payers will pay for them all anyway.

Imagine if that father of 17 children is a rich programmer that earn a lot of money honestly.

It doesn’t matter that he is rich enough to afford those children. The child support is set up to be proportional to man’s wealth. Women that he knocked up will sue him for child support. Feminazi will say she is abusing those women. Many child development expert will say that this should be illegal and that children have “right” for their fathers’ time.

A millionaire that spend $5k per month per child will be called deadbeat parent.

An unemployed people that spend nothing per child will just be free.

Are there other factors?

Yes, but are not strong.

The rich simply cannot literally afford many children due to government laws regulating child support.

This is in addition to many other reproduction related costs.

Marriage (and divorce) tend to be very costly for the rich. The poor lost nothing by getting married. Perhaps the wife even make more money than him. The rich have to risk far more wealth to get married than the poor. Alimony is effectively designed to bankrupt rich smart males.

Anti prostitution laws also make it difficult for women to simply pick the rich. Due to anti prostitution laws, many women that would prefer being paid by a richer men often choose to marry a poorer man.

Many people often reiterate the same bullshit that the rich simply want less children than the poor. They act as the poor are so stupid that they haplessly have children due to lack of access to contraception or whatever.

The truth is. Even if you are rich and WANT to have 17 children like that unemployed guy, how could you? Think about it. How can a smart diligent rich people have 17 children without being bankrupted by child support?

Saying that the rich do not want to have children is like saying slaves do not want to be free anyway while killing those who try. It’s like saying women enjoy rape anyway while killing those who say no. It’s like saying no women would consent to be prostitute, while making prostitution illegal. It’s like saying that people love the tyrant anyway while making it impossible to elect different leader.

The truth is, the very reason why people uses force against our will is because if they don’t use force, too many will choose differently than what the tyrants want.

Should Citizenship be Tradeable?

Like stocks? We know whether companies are managed well or not based on whether stocks go up and down. Perhaps allowing citizenship to have market value will help people judge whether their elected officials are doing well or not.

Also, if you don’t like it here, but everyone else does, just sell your citizenship with high value and move out.

Currently if you don’t like your country you just lost the citizenship. Also war is fought between Israel and Palestines over who should be citizen and have power to vote.

Why not trade that?

Everyone will move to the country that they like best.

Racists can live with their own kind. The rest of us are free from racism. Why argue?

Yes the richest countries should be able to buy the best and brightests. That should give incentive for everyone to
1. Knows who are the most likely be productive for society
2. Reward those exact people.

When a chemist want to work for pharmacy or suicide bomber, I am sure, more meritocracy will motivate him to pick the former.

Now, guns, war, and religions, decide who are in power. We have much lower rate of force and fraud in economy.

We have strong disagreement on many things. I said welfare parasites don’t want children anyway. Other says they’re future tax payer and should be subsidizes.

Whichever is right will be shown more quickly. If those descendant of welfare parasites are indeed productive, their countries’ valuation will go up. If not, it’ll go down.

Corporations don’t make many mistakes when they fire the useless and promote the productive. When countries are governed like corporations, everyone will be judged by their own merit, rather than delusional ideologies or religions.

Also citizens will be more easily compare their country’s performance compared to another.

For those socialists leaning, like corporation, citizenship can pay dividends too. For libertarian leaning: the wealth redistribution will not be in ways that increase governments’ power.

Every body got the same no matter how sick they are or how many kids they breed. If government deviates from meritocracy, every body will feel it the same way because they will see that their dividend and citizenship valuation drop the same amount.