Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Imagine for a while if you are a corrupt selfish politician or an atheist religious leader. Basically, you’re a hypocrite. We often talk about how “evil” those people are. But what about if we’re in their shoes? Perhaps it’s better to understand our “enemies” more or perhaps be more like them. What would you do if you’re a corrupt selfish politician?

How would a corrupt selfish politician “look” from the outside? Compare to how our politicians look. See any similarity? For example, if I am a corrupt politician I want bigger religious influence. Religions motivate people to pick options not based on verifiable data and hence I can corrupt more money.I will bribe religious leaders.

If the religious leaders are atheists they would interpret religions in a way that benefit me, their sponsors.

People from outside will see how religious interpretation often correlates with the interest of religious leaders. Most religious leaders, for example, will promote marriage because that means they have more control over people’s life.

Some, the secular will call me “lying”. Another, the religious, will get “offended”.In any case, the people are divided and as long as they fight each other, they’re not fighting corruption, which means more money for me.

Corrupt politicians will want bigger governments so I get more kickbacks. Also, I want complex rules that are hard to navigate.

For example, I will want a huge redistribution of wealth because that makes governments bigger. I also want a complex welfare system that encourages the poor to breed and remain poor so I can play around and steal money.

I think the question is essentially, how to get rich through politic. Till we understand this, we can’t change the world, nor can we change ourselves to adapt to the world. I’d say it’s easier to adapt to the world if we understand the nature of the “gods” that rule the world, the corrupt politicians.

It’s easy to think that if we’re a powerful politician that can make changes we will stick with our ideology now. The libertarians will say I will promote free market. The socialist will say I will redistribute more wealth.

However, when we’re politician, our incentives changes too. Now, we no longer make more money if tax is low. We can steal more if tax is high.

I wonder how open-border libertarians resolve traveling stupid voters problem? I used to be an open border libertarian and kind of still partially do. But there is a catch. Imagine if voters in Venezuela are stupid. They are so stupid they pick a system that lead to poverty.

Under open border libertarianism, those people can come to Brazil, US, Canada, once their own country mess up, and then they will vote for socialism again and then they will bankrupt those countries still, and move and move and move spreading stupidity. In fact, relatively stupid people will tend to vote for socialism because they are far more likely to benefit from a redistribution of wealth.

Under the current system, a richer country can just vet immigrants. If Venezuelan vote stupidly, they will be poor. We will all watch and know not to vote like them. It’s like going to your own house. You don’t have a right to keep people out but you have a right to keep outsider out till you think otherwise. It would have made sense if countries have “owners” and we consider countries to “own” their territories.

However, the current system, while not perfect is fine.

Some libertarians would argue that the solution is to honor NAP.

Immigrants can come but cannot vote for welfare, for example. This is not truly practical. Politic is a bit like, well, surprised surprised, libertarian businesses.

In normal business, if you own something, others cannot take it easily. If they do you call cops.In normal businesses, right or wrong often matter because we have cops enforcing those “right” from “wrong things”.

In politic, there isn’t really any moral. In politic there is no “cop” you can call. You cannot make voting for welfare illegal. If 50 percents of the population need welfare and they can try to get it through political protest they’ll get it through mass riots and terrorism.

In normal life, if someone seize your land, you call cops. In politic, if a country seizes another country’s land then we just blame the victim for being weak.

We have an international community that sort of help arbitrage this sort of thing but not by much. There are many ways to play around. A country can say they’re threatened or that the people on those land actually want to join and so on and so on.

Interests are maintained through power. People that live near you will always have power over you and hence letting them channel their wish through voting may be better then letting them come and not letting them vote.

Notable exception to this is Dubai where 90% of the people are immigrants. However, I am not sure if Dubai’s system can work well in western countries. They have religions to keep people in line and the governments don’t have to worry about winning votes.

Dubai, however, does not practice open border but have simpler immigration vetting that I think is a good model for their country.

Affirmative Action Address Past Oppression?

I wonder if affirmative action (or its replacement) is there to compensate for past oppression or for contemporary success disparity due to contemporary competence disparity? We can test this theory. If A ->B then B usually suggest A. That’s how scientific reasoning works.

And yes correlation does strongly suggest causation. Our whole scientific knowledge is built upon this imperfect reasoning.

Which one correlates more with the benefits of affirmative action?

Show me an ethnic group that is more successful financially or academically that are benefited by affirmative action?

Show me any group that is already over-represented in top ivy league school that got help by affirmative action so that they are even more over-represented. If there are none, then I would give a score to the theory of disparity of contemporary success.

Affirmative action is simply socialism on racial groups. Now. What about if the ancestors are “oppressed” similarly. Will affirmative action benefit one or the other?

If affirmative actions addressed past oppressions we would expect those whose ancestors are oppressed similarly to be treated the same way under affirmative action. Simple right? Let’s see how affirmative action treats white men vs white women or men of any race vs women of similar race.

Those 2 groups of people have the exact same ancestors right. Their sex is determined randomly by the extra X chromosome somewhere during the last fuck that knock their mom up.

Would affirmative action treat them the same way? No.

Hence, I concluded that affirmative action tries to compensate for contemporary success disparity due to contemporary competence disparity.

Is it justified? That’s another story for another post.

Why Voters and Businessmen Should Learn from Each Other?

What are the main differences between businesses and politics?

For example. One way to understand politic is to see that politic is like a business where you can’t call cops.

If I own a business and a mob tries to rob my house, I call cops.

If I am the president and the majority of people want to topple me, then I can’t call cops. I can mow them down, or I can gracefully quit, I can’t call cops. I am the cop or “authority” so to speak.

A business does not need complex democratic check and balance mechanism to keep stable. We have laws, usually provided by the government. Anything goes wrong, we call cops.

In politic, any country that strays from democracy too much will have a problem. That’s because if push comes to shove, the will of the people matter, if not in the election, in rebellion. That’s something most business owners do not have to worry about.

In many other things, those are similar. Voters and kings are like owners. Most businessmen, just as most politicians, resolve their differences among themselves instead of “calling higher power”.

Any Cinema Owners?

You are a cinema owner.

80% of your customers want to watch Avengers End Game

20% of your customers want to watch 2 girls one cup.

You have 50 theaters to show the movie.

The industry is very competitive. There are like 186 other cinemas people an go to.

What do you do?

  • Show Avengers End Game in all theaters because of the Majority Rules
  • Show 2g1c in all because the majority have to accommodate minorities Tell the majority of your customers to check their privilege
  • Become an anarcho cinema. Don’t choose any movie to avoid forcing people to watch what they don’t want. Let them fight things out themselves
  • Accommodate everyone. Split-screen showing or superimpose one movie on top of another.
  • Show Avengers End Game in 80% of your theaters. Show 2g1c in 20% of your theater, let each customer buy tickets and move to their preferred theaters

Ego Dissolution

There is this story that in ancient time, Persia and North Africa was not Islamism. The Arabs conquer them. Then what? Then they adopt Islam. Islam, like democracy, is very effective at uniting people. So rulers adopt what works. It’s just the natural order. The same way, most regions are not secular, democratic, or capitalistic. The secular whites colonize them. At that time, only the US and French were democratic, even among whites. Later, other people adopt what works. They don’t see this as white’s value anymore. They think it’s their value too. Now, that’s culturally appropriating. What’s interesting here is that the culture that’s, in a sense is, “superior” relative to the existing one tends to be free from “ego.” Asians don’t adopt “white supremacism” of course. And as whites abandon racism, the rest abandon racism too. Makes me wonder if this is related to Buddha’s concept of dissolution of the ego. Is this what enlightenment is? You lost your ego, but then you do things because it’s the right to do and not because it’s “you.” There is no longer “you” or others. There is only what’s “real” and “unreal.” Self is an illusion.

Am I an Eugenic

Humans are like factories of other humans. That’s how reproduction works. We create those that are similar to us by reproducing. We also create pencils, pens, and stuff.

I favor (and this has nothing to do with american/indonesian and much more to do with libertarianism) production of things that are actually in demand.

In a sense, I am not an eugenic. If we go to a shop we buy the best product at the most affordable price. If we pick mates we pick the prettiest and smartest that we also can afford.

The process is not eugenic. We don’t try to improve product quality or humans’ genes. The effect is eugenics. Product or mates that are chosen reproduce.

If we pick a nice pen, then the pen factory gets paid. That factory can produce more similar pens. If we pick pretty girls, the pretty girls will get richer men. In the absence of welfare, their sons can attract more women leaving more descendants. Reproduction is not symmetric. Women practices hypergamy and men wish to practice polygamy. A bit complex than pen but works the same way.

This maybe a bit hard to understand for someone with monogamy culture because whites tend to expect everyone to produce the same number of children.

I am not opposed or support population growth. Who cares? Let the market decides. Then whatever is in demand will be plenty.

In most countries, we have welfare that encourages the unemployed to reproduce. If bob is unemployed, that means he is not in demand. Under free market, Bob is unfit to be husband or boyfriend. Poof. He’s out of the gene pool. Even if we feed Bob, as long as we don’t give more welfare just because he has more children, poverty will be gone.

Under more market oriented system, Bob will use his UBI to start a business and get rich first before breeding. Under current system, if Bob works hard, he will be taxed to pay welfare to his breeding peers. See? Income tax and welfare.

We have monogamy and anti prostitution laws to prevent people from picking what they think is best.

To me that’s socialism and anti eugenic.

Also I think pure libertarianism may be too extreme. Why would the less competitive humans want to let the most attractive humans get all the mates? That is why no country is pure libertarianism. We have laws against porn to limit the amount of attention pretty girls get. We have laws against prostitution to limit the amount of money rich men can use.

And that’s also part of political reality we need to accept. Libertarianism, for better or worse, is not too “desirable” for voters.