IQ is Divine. Wealth is Miracle. Economic Contribution is Benevolence.

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

I once asked my professor, which one is smarter. Bill Gates or Einstein. My Proffesor, LS says, Einstein. It’s an obvious question. Then I asked him. If Einstein is smarter, why is Bill Gates richer?

I asked my bible teacher, which one is more benevolent, Bill Gates or Mother Theresa? He said Mother Theresa. If Mother Theresa is more benevolent why BIll Gates contribute more to the economy?

We have this discussion that Bill Gates don’t “suffer” for his good deeds. To me, that’s a very stupid measure. Why we consider someone benevolent when he suffers. Are people psychopaths that want people to suffer that they encourage suffering by calling it benevolent?

Sub Prime Mortgage is a Scam

Subprime looting is a scam. Again, I am not an expert in this, and we can all agree that I am way smarter than average voters.

What happened, or so I hear, is that subprime looting happens partly because of governments regulation forcing lenders to lend to poor “minorities”.

Those poor people have higher interest rate and can’t pay. It causes housing bubbles. The loan is collateralize using the property. In other word, if property price drop, people will stop paying their loan. Why should I pay $1 million extra for a house worth $500? It’ll trigger something positive feedback.

Another theory is that governments want to create jobs for real estate industry. For that to work land price have to keep going up and up.

Some people leverage the gamble. They gamble with others’ people money. When things go south, the government pays for it. if governments don’t bail out they just what? Go bankcrupt?

So what’s the solution?

Solution is experimental local governments each with their own rule. See which one works.

One big government making bad decisions like this is like Ming dinasty not allowing foreign travel. Look who colonized the world in 1400?

The Game of Ideology

The game of ideology is not which ideology is best or which ideology will give the best result.

To win an ideology need to be able to win an election or win civil war or both. For that, to work an ideology need to be able to convince people that it’s the best.

Democracy can do both. Because the majority always win election the losers do not usually want another civil war. Also, the outcome is always moderate. Would you wage civil war to move your country a bit to the left or a bit to the right? No right?

Religion can win. I am not saying it’s a good idea, but the most monarchy has some form of religion. Why? Because it can convince people that it’s the best. Religions are very good at convincing people of something. We got to admit that.

Communism can win. Again, win here doesn’t mean making my country prosper. Here, win means actually be adopted. Why? Because stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is very intuitive for MOST poor people. You can say that’s not how to get rich. However, that’s not how poor people think.

Libertarianism? It works. How do you convince people that you’re right? If something isn’t tried first, proven first, not even I know.

That’s why I advocate experimental local governments with homogen voters/owners. We can try anything and eventually one of those things will be something closer and closer to minarchism and libertarianism. People will see that it really works. Then more will spread.

If the game is who can convince, libertarianism is at a disadvantage. If the game is we try several things and see which one works, then ideologies with the best result will be the winner.

Currently, the winning ideology is a normal democracy. Normal democracy doesn’t satisfy the conditions of Coase theorems. Voting/transaction costs are too high complicated by lobbyists. Ownership of state and the right to govern isn’t clear.

Under normal democracy, you can eliminate corruption, perform all function efficiently, and stupid voters from other provinces will come and set things back to socialism. Or some poor people can breed and breed demanding more socialism.

Normal democracy has a level that it can’t get up. In Indonesia, a guy named Ahok, made tons of improvement with only 60% of the budget. The result? He is jailed due to vague blasphemy charge. That’s how normal democracy works. The people are too stupid to figure out that Ahok is protecting their money from corruption.

The people should realize that most policies are way out of their league. They should “simplify” their democracy. Turn voters into owners. Vote with feet. Now, good vs bad, can be measured much more easily. Is voting right’s price go up or down? How much money people are willing to pay to move here and pay tax?

Why Local Statism Combined With Global/Countrywide Libertarianism is Best

Libertarians want small government. I agree.

However, demanding smaller government through “reason” is not practical, not convincing, and in a sense, not fair.

It’s like deciding who win a race through “argument”. No. You let them run you see who come first place.

Instead, we should embrace localized statism. Let local governments over small area have owners, and let the voters be the initial “owners”.

Owners are voters with rights that shareholders typically have. That is, the right to buy and sell ownership/voting. Unlike normal voters, owners do not have to worry that their ownership will be “diluted” by immigrants from other provinces/states. Owners get roughly the same benefit with every other owners no matter what the policies of the state is.

So voters with an extra right. It’s toward the best of interest of voters to give an extra right to themselves so this can be achieved democratically.

The small state can be keep democratic. Just ensure that 90%-99% of shares/voting right belong to resident and only 1%-10% for speculators or investors. However, this is optional.

Let them govern as they wish. See which one works.

Coase theorem says that if ownership is clear then resources allocation will be optimal.

I am a libertarian for big states but can tolerate stat-ism for local governments.

Will this lead to libertarianism? In many cases no. Some states will be even more statist. Some states will build church, for example. However, even atheist “owners” will be benefited if building such church attract more christians tax payers.

Drugs will be legalized and taxed because it’s a profitable things to do.

Lobbying will be difficult because owners have less conflict of interests.

Tax will be more cost effective. Currently, it probably costs $100 for every $10 the government collect in taxes. Put it in other way, for the same amount of government revenue, government have to hurt the economy by $100.

Why? Because often the purpose of tax is not to collect revenue. The purpose is to prevent others to get rich. Tax is so complex because voters have strong conflict of interests. Owners do not. Income taxes can easily be avoided by not working or shifting profit overseas. More efficient tax means less tax burden for the same revenue.

Freedom of Association for Organization with Teritories

Some people like to associate among themselves. Communists like to have their own communes. Christians go to their church. Muslims go to their mosques. Those who like bugers go to burger kings and those who like pizza go to Pizza huts. We trade and deals with what we like and those that we like most are often different than those others’ like.

We already can do that. Communists can have their own communes. Some works. I just want to extend this to something with territories, like cities and provinces, and districts.

In other words, if you want a society you like you have to move to area you want. This is a small price for small provinces/cities but a huge price if your country is big. That’s why I think it’s okay that small provinces discriminate. It’s not okay for big countries to discriminate.

In addition, I think provinces and cities should have owners. So those coming in must get permission from previous owners before they can live and vote like other residents.

Otherwise, voters can just vote for socialism, turn their district into shitholes, and move to another district.

My inspiration for this is the mosques in my country. The Muslims are the majority and their mosque is loud. Basically every 5 hours they have loudspeaker calling people to pray. Non Muslims like me tolerate that. However, it often goes beyond that. The mosque also makes a speech or sing songs with a loudspeaker. Someone that protest against that is sent to jail.

The solution is simple. Don’t live near a mosque. However, that’s tricky to do. Anyone can build a mosque anywhere. The muslims are the majority.

In one case, 98% of the land is owned by a real estate developer that simply want to demolish the mosque. It seems that not even their Muslims’ customers like the “noise”.

The loud mosque lowers the price of real estate and the developer don’t like it. However, the developer owns only the land and not the “ruling” right of the area. I bet they did backroom deals and just bribe officials to get rid of the mosque.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Muslims that like their loud mosque can have their own territory. The rest can go somewhere else. Different niche for a different neighbor. I bet the real estate price for both will go up.

The muslims neighbor will attract muslims that want their area to be free from gay or porn or western influence. The secular like me can enjoy quite neighbor.

The big federal (or united government) is there to prevent states/provinces from waging war against other states/provinces. The states or provinces are free to discriminate.

Why? Because discrimination is unavoidable. If you build mosque you discriminate against non muslims. If you build roads you discriminate against those who don’t drive cars. If you draft people for war you discriminate against lower class. In fact, much middle class and rich people simply avoid that by either going to college or have bone spurs. Trump avoid draft this way.

So we have rules that everybody circumvent.

If we equally own the country and we’re not equally benefited, the one that gets less will complain. That’s how affirmative action happens. If we do not equally own the country then we’re not democracy. That means we’re not politically stable.

Solutions? Let everyone in a province to equally own their province and those who don’t like it, can sell their share and move to other provinces.

Can Small Country or Province Discriminate or Idiosyncratic?

The short answer is factually yes. Arab Saudi, for example, discriminate against non muslims. Australia and USA used to have white-only immigration policy. Curiously, I’ve heard it’s Trump, that many called racists, that try to make immigration to US more meritocratic.

Israel and Singapore have ethnic based immigration policies. Israel prefer jews and Singapore favor chinese immigrant.

USA and Indonesia have affirmative action against chinese. Also the action is shady. They don’t openly say they discriminate. In Indonesia, like in USA, if you apply for college, they don’t show you your score or the scores of those accepted. Everybody sort of know or guess that typical chinese need to score higher to get in.

Should countries or small provinces? Most libertarians will say no. I think the answer should be yes but only if the country/province is small.

In fact, why have it half way? Why have “moderate” discrimination in the whole big country? Why not have no discrimination in one province and big discrimination in another. I will then move to a meritocratic provinces. Better for me that don’t like discrimination. Better for those who like discrimination too.

It is precisely because I do not like discrimination I prefer it’s done somewhere else where I don’t live. Preventing discrimination and statism globally is a bad strategy even for libertarianism.

Is it okay to discriminate? It seems that most people are okay to discriminate in dating. I and most people here will never date a guy or a trans.

Anyway, we think it’s okay to discriminate in a date. What about in business? Now things vary. Libertarians like me think business should be able to discriminate.

The exception is when it causes disruption in the economy. For example, it’s kind of shitty if I call uber and they don’t want to pick me up because I am Chinese. Not like it ever happens.

If that happens I will just blacklist uber and use Lyfts. And that’s precisely why I think businesses should have a right to discriminate. It’s not toward their best interests to do so and when they do, they probably have a very good reason.

The way US government works is that anti-discrimination laws work only on big businesses. Small businesses don’t have to worry about it. What about states or governments? Can the government discriminate? Most libertarians will say no.

However, unless you live in a very big country like US or Indonesia, you can easily escape to another country if you’re discriminated. The problem is in getting rich in the first place so you can be more attractive to the receiving country.

What about really big businesses like Facebook? Is it okay for facebook to discriminate against conservative opinions? I would still say yes but others would say no. I see a pattern that I see. The smaller the people affected and the more visceral the act, the more people are okay with discrimination.

The bigger the organization the less people think it’s okay for discrimination. And I think the way most people think is already okay. It’s okay for small organization to discriminate. It’s not okay for big organization to discriminate.

Libertarians only care about 2 things, private, or public. It’s okay for private parties to discriminate and it’s not okay for public to discriminate.

To me, this will cause unnecessary conflict. That means every nation, every city, every country can’t discriminate.

Libertarians are effectively enforcing their idea for the whole globe and that’s just not working out because libertarianism is weak.

I think we need to take other factors first. Namely the size of the organization. I think it’s okay for small countries or provinces to discriminate as long as they don’t change things abruptly.

Those who don’t like it can slowly go to another place. Those who disagree or will be discriminated can slowly move to another province or state.

I think small countries and provinces are like or can be made like private organization and that’s why it’s okay for them to discriminate as long as they give plenty of time to leave, like in 5 years. What do you think?

Most People Don’t Date Trans

Becoming a trans is like producing typewriters. When you produce (or become) something nobody wants you will live a miserable life.

Oh, all will be paid by universal healthcare. I see I see. Go ahead then. Hei let’s go back and forth while at it?

The opposite of trans are prostitutes and drug dealers. Be like a prostitute. Well, we all are. I think I am on to something here.

Big governments turn people freak