The Real Problem with Socialism

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Should we blame people for being selfish? Wouldn’t it be like blaming gravity? If we’re blaming selfishness aren’t we the one that’s wrong?

Look at socialism. Voters want more jobs and welfare. Well, they just want to maximize their profit. Corporations and businessmen want to maximize their profit. Why can’t voters?

The mistake of socialism is not that the voters selfishly maximize their profit. The mistake of socialism is that they often don’t.

Socialists are often like bad shopowners. They treat their best customers badly and subsidize their bad customers. They set the price and discount wrong and too complicated.

They make doing business with them difficult.

They hurt their own customers for “equality” and indirectly they hurt themselves.

They are not maximizing their profit and the best customers simply flee.

Many socialists hate wealth no matter what. They reward welfare based on poverty. That is not a way to maximize their interests.

Those commies are like shop owners that don’t want to see their customers happy. Their customers simply go to other shops. Often, the customers actually pay more to that other shops and don’t mind if they are treated more friendly.

Many commies tax incomes to prevent the poor from getting rich. They don’t do it to make more money. They don’t make more money. They do it out of spite to the rich.

They make welfare complicated so tons of money lost in political costs. Voting issues are too complex, many policies are effectively burning money.

Instead, voters that want to maximize their interests, should govern their country like a business. The benefit to voters should be like benefits to shareholders. It should be simple to calculate and hard to corrupt, like simple dividend or UBI.

All voting blocs should think how to make the pie bigger, not just to voters, but to their customers, the taxpayers, instead of concentrating on getting more concessions from other voting blocs and customers.

Say I am freer and saver in country A than a country B. Obviously I am willing to pay more tax to live in country A more than B. People in country A can collect more taxes than people in country B and I would still move to country A and pay those bigger taxes.

Redistribution of wealth should based on that. Poorer voters shouldn’t get more just like poorer shareholders shouldn’t get more dividend.

Instead of preventing people to gain wealth, voters should let the smart to get rich productively and find a way to monetize that.

Many rights are just too costly to economy. Why form unions or demand a right to block roads during protests, or do strikes?

Nation states are protection rackets. That’s the real business of nation states. Voters should simply do their job well. Voters should simply protect businesses, get their tax, and ask for reasonable protection fees.

Let the market and competition among nations take care the rest.

Now that’s the profitable ways to redistribute wealth. We all maximize our profit and everyone is better off.

The socialist can be the side that says we should raise price and the libertarians should be the side that says we should lower price.

Nothing is inherently right or wrong. Competition among nations will ensure that the tax rate will be about the same anyway. That’s not where progress is.

The biggest problems of socialism are not that they are lazy parasites. Many people in North Korea, are more diligent than people in capitalist countries.

The biggest problem of socialism is the misallocation of resources.

Misallocation or resources happen because socialism is just too complex for average voters and people.

So many socialists prevent others from being wealthy because they think it’s wrong. When they tax people, they don’t tax people so they make more money. They tax people to prevent others from being rich even though they are not profited.

Often the money don’t really go to voters. The money simply go to corrupt officials and politicians that see that they can make more money demonizing the rich.

They also give more money to those lazier and dumber.

The wealth of some people are just benefits to customers. Those benefits if managed correctly will go to voters one way or another.

Is Libtardism a religion?

US have first amendment preventing nations to favor “normal” religions. But then, Americans just make new religions that bypass that. Radical feminism, SJW, and libtardisme is a religion. Questioning it is blasphemy.

Note: To say one is not to question is not to claim that no questions are ever asked. The Right quite readily questions Antiracismโ€™s tenets. Key, however, is that among Antiracism adherents, those questions are tartly dismissed as inappropriate and often, predictably, as racist themselves. The questions are received with indignation that one would even ask them, with a running implication that their having been asked is a symptom of, yes, racismโ€™s persistence. <- https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion

Wow. This makes a lot of sense. Certain questions offend religious sensibilities of many that tend to correlate with the interests of some politicians. So you can’t ask that.

It’s like I am asking if women prefer the rich how can there be many kids with poor dad. I can ask that politely but people don’t like to answer that.

It offends some of their faith. It questions whether women prefer the rich or not. It questions how poverty is the result of the choice of the mother. It questions the freedom they have. It questions the feminist ideas that prostitution is illegal to protect women instead of rationing them to poorer men. It questions the purpose of marriage.

Obviously, a richer man can provide more resources even if he has 10 mistresses than a poorer man offering marriage. Richer men are more likely to have the right genes to get rich.

It is a religion. Americans worship mediocrity when it comes to reproductive success.

Everyone is expected to find a mate. It has to be a “couple”.

You can’t have an acceptable sexual relationship between 3-4 people. And then anything that’s outside that is sin/illegal.

It should be based on love because love is blind. If some people are not blind and pick richer guys or thinner prettier girls, then it is either illegal or politically incorrect or unacceptable. Questioning it is blasphemy.

Because men are “equal” every race should have the same performance. There should be as many Asians in NBA as the population percentage. There should be as many blacks in MBA program. Otherwise it’s “oppression” because it violates their dogma.

It questions the equality of humans in making money. It offends so many established beliefs.ย 

Is Ramajunan a prophet?

How do we know if someone is a prophet?

Imagine Bob saying you go to heaven if you give me $100. Bob may be a prophet for saying things we don’t know. However, we can’t verify his saying. He can also be a scoundrel.

Bob can say, my words are true. Look at the sunrise in the east. Here, we can verify Bob’s words. However, it doesn’t mean Bob is a prophet. That’s because most humans also know that the sun rises in the east.

I think I know how to test a prophet. What about if we ask him something that we don’t know is true but we can verify. Things like solutions to NP complete problems with sufficient .

Or price of bitcoins tomorrow (Jewish torah suggest something similar)? Or solutions to some math tricks.

Is Ramajunan a prophet then?

“He credited his acumen to his family goddess, Namagiri Thayar (Goddess Mahalakshmi) of Namakkal. He looked to her for inspiration in his work[12]:36 and said he dreamed of blood drops that symbolised her consort, Narasimha. Afterward he would receive visions of scrolls of complex mathematical content unfolding before his eyes.[12]:281 He often said, “An equation for me has no meaning unless it represents a thought of God.”[59]

Hardy cites Ramanujan as remarking that all religions seemed equally true to him.[12]:283

Or is it how “prophecy” really works. Someone has really really good cognitive function in some area that they impress a large number of people. People then attribute his insight into something divine.

For example, say I have a good interpersonal skill. I saw someone coming with dreadlock. I will say, do you have an african decent? The connection may not be obvious for most people. However, anyone with good interpersonal skill can guess that. Many tarot card readers count on tricks like this called cold reading.

The thing with Ramanujan is, he thinks he is a prophet of his goddess. The rest of us don’t believe it. Isn’t that how other prophets work?

Of course, in case of Ramanujan, we value him as a smart mathematician far more than we value him as another prophet. Prophets after all, rarely advance science or bring peace.

How do we know someone is a prophet?

Why the world should produce more daughters, and why don’t we?

What I am trying to say if parents can choose the sex of their children, most will be more productive if they produce daughters. However, improper counting of productivity may make them choose to produce sons instead. Like in China.

The problem with marriage prostitution and sugar relationship is that women’s contribution to the economy doesn’t show up in GDP.

Prostitution is illegal so under reported. Transactions between women and husbands are often considered “internal issues”. So not reported either.

All the sex, the pregnancy, the sandwich making, and stuff, don’t show up in the economy. So it looks like women are parasitic even though they’re important.

Solution: Ban marriage. Legalize prostitution. Anyone wants to get married can draft their own prostitution/sugar contract.

Record allowance money was given to “wives” as income for girls and jot that down in GDP record.

Now we never have to worry about bullshit like sanctity, or legitimacy, or civil marriage. Let each player call their prostitution what the fuck ever they want. The rest don’t have to agree. Let everyone eat their own bullshit.

Lots of inefficiency in the economy is due to bad measurements you know.

Tada, we achieve true equality. I told you I am a feminist.

Here is what I think the problem is. Our choices are not strictly our choices.

A husband can earn $5k and pay his wife $5k saying she worths $5k a month or she can pay her $1k and stuff. So if her husbands’ income is $5k, the actual productivity may actually be $5k-$10k.

In any case, we don’t count that and we don’t usually care because that’s their internal problems. However, our decisions are not decided just by private decisions. We tend to take into account laws when making decisions.

For example, we avoid decisions that are illegal or politically incorrect. That requires public debate.

If the wife’s fucking worth $5k and she ends up coding instead of fucking husbands and get paid $1k a month, then the total productivity drops.

Now some politicians may say, look, we got to give women maternity leave to encourage them to work. This may reduce productivity as a whole.

However, the rhetoric will look good on voting because her productivity fucking her sugar daddies/husbands do not show up on GDP calculation while her working as programmers shows up.

We can tax wife for money her husbands/sugar daddies give her but that looks like double taxation and will cause under-reporting of the value either.

I would propose that we legalize prostitution, and tax them really low like 1%. That way the stuff shows up on Governments’ GDP register.

๐Ž๐Ÿ๐ญ๐ž๐ง ๐ฐ๐ž ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ง๐ž๐ž๐ proper ๐ข๐ง๐œ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž๐ฌ, ๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ง ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐š๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฆ๐š๐ค๐ž ๐ฉ๐ž๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ž ๐๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ

I got an idea of how we can resolve all controversial topics. I do not think this should be resolved with the arguments. I think this should be resolved by residency valuation and the market mechanism.
ย 
Different cities/states/provinces have different rules and then the residency has a valuation that can be bought and sold. Anyone that wants to move and live and vote in a city needs to buy residency. They got to wait till someone else want to sell or until the city issue a new residency.
ย 
In other words, cities/states/provinces should have “owners” and run for profit. The owners are just the voters of course.
ย 
I think states or cities with sensible rules will see residency valuation go up. This will give incentive for voters to use common sense when making rules.
ย 
For example, ๐š ๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐ญ๐ž ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ญ don’t just allow but also ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐›๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ข๐ณ๐ž๐ฌ ๐š๐›๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, contraception, ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฆ๐š๐ค๐ž๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฆ๐š๐ง๐๐š๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ง ๐ž๐ฑ๐œ๐ก๐š๐ง๐ ๐ž ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฐ๐ž๐ฅ๐Ÿ๐š๐ซ๐ž ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ก๐š๐ฏ๐ž ๐ฅ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐จ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฉ๐ž๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ž ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ง๐ž๐ฑ๐ญ ๐ ๐ž๐ง๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง.
ย 
That means more roads, more bus, ๐ฅ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐œ๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐ž, ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐ž๐ซ ๐ญ๐š๐ฑ๐ž๐ฌ (conservatives love this). In fact, ๐ข๐Ÿ ๐ฉ๐จ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฉ๐ž๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ž ๐š๐ซ๐ž ๐ฌ๐จ ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ฐ, ๐ž๐š๐œ๐ก ๐œ๐š๐ง ๐›๐ž ๐ญ๐š๐ค๐ž๐ง ๐œ๐š๐ซ๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐ž ๐ž๐š๐ฌ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฒ (liberals love this). Of course, people want to move there. Residency valuation goes up.
ย 
We don’t argue Burger King is better than Pizza Hut. Why argues whether abortion should be legal or not?
ย 
Of course, if Burger King is not delicious the valuation of their share will drop because customers will move somewhere else. That will motivate them to cook delicious burgers.
ย 
The same way, if residency has a valuation, and voters make stupid rules, the valuation of their residency will drop. This will motivate them to make sensible rules.
ย 
Just like some will go to Pizza Hut and some will go to Burger King no matter what, there is no one right answer for everyone. Just let other people be different and live far away from you. You’ve not been affected in any significant way anyway so who cares.

Extending Meritocracy and NAP to Groups instead of just Individuals

Meritocracy doesn’t have to be on an individual base. Allowing groups some autonomy combined with NAP among groups can improve NAP among individuals within many groups. Meritocracy between groups will lead to meritocracy within groups and between individuals. Is it?

We allow kids to be rich just because their parents are rich. Here, families are groups that took care of each other. We shouldn’t care too much if some parents spank their child. We start interfering when parents do something more extreme like amputating their children’s arm to make better beggars.

Shareholders get rich because their companies get up or down collectively. Inside, the corporations will reward more productive employees because otherwise, the corporations will make less profit.

The United States is richer because of they, collectively as a nation, wiser.

The idea is to divide individuals into families or nations or citizens or villages or group and arrange those groups don’t excessively harm other groups while allowing those groups to have more autonomy inward.

A city can legalize gambling or stealing or drugs. Unwise decisions will hurt residents in the city so the residents will pick what’s wise.

The only thing we need to concern is if the cities produce too many poor people it can export to other cities. That’s what I mean.

Is this good for libertarianism?

It depends. On principles, there are things libertarians may not like. For example, libertarians are usually individualists. Also, why should a smart productive individual in Venezuela suffer because of their evil state while a lazy Americans prosper?

However, competition among nations motivates most countries to be more libertarian. It is precisely because Americans prosper and Venezuelan are poor that citizens of every other country want to be more like Americans. Americans, after all, are more libertarians than Venezuelans.

Also, it’s not that bad. The smart and productive in Venezuela can go somewhere else. They can then pull out their families.

NAP among nations is more practical than NAP between individuals. Individuals are so weak compared to the states expecting governments not to tax us is difficult.

However, nations are reasonably powerful compared to the world’s government. We don’t even have the world’s government. So NAP among nations is quite good. NAP among individuals is then achieved by smart people moving to libertarian countries.

It’s simply more practical to pursue NAP among nations, cities, or provinces first than NAP among individuals right away.

It’ll help resolve issues like abortion. Again the mom chooses whether they abort their babies or not. We can consider families as a group. Then abortion is like in group harm that we shouldn’t care.

Or what about the legalization of prostitution and drugs? Instead of insisting that it should be legal everywhere, we realize that each state/provinces/cities should have the autonomy to decides that.

Let each city decide. Denver, Colorado decides to legalizes mushroom. I am sure their citizens will prosper due to those decisions. Then other cities will follow. So, libertarian goals, namely legalization of drugs, happen due to a bit of statism, namely the idea that cities can decide what’s legal or not legal.

What happens if cities criminalize Kentucky fried chicken? Don’t worry. The citizens as a group will suffer, and individuals can go out. The cities will change their decisions, and those decisions are not popular.

This doesn’t look like straight forward libertarians. However, we can’t force every group to be libertarians within their group. We just need to ensure that every group practices NAP between the groups. Then see the rules that show up between the groups. I think it’ll be quite close to libertarians.

The only important right we need is to ensure that each can detach itself from its group. In other words, we don’t even need the right to immigrate. Every nation can refuse any person they wish. We just need to the right to emigrate. As long as nations cannot prevent their valuable citizens from getting out, they have to compete.

Every company can refuse any employee but they cannot prevent employees from living right.

So the way it works, it’s already close to the way our current world works.

Under normal democracies, NAP among groups is violated by 2 problems. Extreme libertarianism may make the world less libertarians on these issues.

Traveling stupid voters problems and breeding voters problems

In traveling stupid voters problems, a city can make bad policies produces poverty in societies and travel to other cities.

People in middle east want theocracy and then go to Europe and then demanding syariah. Now, this is one of the things where “pure libertarianism” with its open border policy may lead to less libertarianism overall.

Now, people in the middle east is not in the same country like Europe. So they cannot immigrate easily. Imagine if they are in the same country?

Imagine if those people are not in middle east but within your country. We already have American Taliban criminalizing abortion in Georgia.

Another is breeding stupid voters’ problem. Here, one family can gain control of a nation by breeding more children. That hurts the interests of other families. Democracy allows this without restrictions.

Some welfare parasites can keep breeding more cradle to grave welfare parasites that just vote for more statism.

Many people that support meritocracy think it’s unfair that a fetus of poor couples get aborted while a fetus of a rich couple get the best vitamins and healthcare and latter will have better educations and opportunities.

It’s not an individual base meritocracy. It’s not even clear under libertarianism if abortion is okay or not. The fetus may count as individuals. However, if we look at it through the lense of NAP among families it’s very clear. We don’t interfere on fetus’ life because it’s their families’ problem.

Abortion right leads to some libertarian goals like less tax and less welfare. On the other hand, excessive libertarianism, like counting the fetus as an individuals, will lead to less libertarianism in other area. Now tax payers will end up paying for those unwanted children.

The children of someone productive will have more chances in life due to the merit of their family, not their individual merit. After all, the children are just born. They have no merit yet.

Again, family/gene-based meritocracy would fix this. Each child born out of welfare parasite does not have the same right with a child born out of positively contributing citizens. The child born out of richer couples will have more toys, better IQs, and better education.

There will be conflicts among societies right, family’s right, and individuals’ right. A society may prohibit abortion, the mom may do it, and the fetus may disagree.

But most of those conflicts can be resolved peacefully. The mom can move to another society that allows abortion, for example.

In other words, if we don’t even know whether something is good or bad or black and white. If it’s not clear something is good or bad or whether the individuals decide, we should err on what the group decides.

 

How selfish Humans Are

I once heard from a church about a church donating money to the poor in a village. The village head demand that they obtain “licenses”. The church see about all the starving villagers get almost nothing and the village head is getting all as bribe. How can people be so callous that they get all the donation in the middle of so many poor people?
ย 
However, the message don’t seem to come across at all to a family I had. My uncle says that you can’t just let everyone to donate without licenses. It may causes social problems. What about if some group get and another don’t. People will get jealous to each other. So the solution is to get the donation “regulated” by the officials? It makes me think a lot. Are these people so evil that they think stat-ism is a good idea?
Or are they actually just like me? I can make money through capitalistic mean. So I think it’s evil to steal. I don’t have to steal. That village head has no way to make money through capitalistic mean. So he steal. And my uncle? Like most people he is just ignorant because he doesn’t care.
ย 
We are all selfish and care so little about others. Any system that doesn’t count on properly aligning greed to productivity is destined to fail.
ย