Why Capitalists Should Support Abortion and Contraception Like Fuck

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

What you get when you ban abortion

https://www.quora.com/What-made-you-angry-today/answer/Aditya-Jaya-Lauson

Now, this is a rare extreme cases.

But think about it. For every undesirable children with poor parents

How many will vote socialism?

How many will want socialized healthcare?

How many will drain welfare?

How many will cost prison money?

How many will do riots?

How many will want anti competitive laws such as trade restrictions?

How many will want to vote for higher minimum wage?

How many hate capitalism?

How many want to exterminate YOU and your children?

How many will be against patriarchy? That is, against rich men having more money?

How many will want bigger government?

How many will want to criminalize drugs? How many will want syariah or other religious laws?

How many will want to force you to call them they/them/pronoun

How many will want to indoctrinate your children with bullshit?

Not all of those are pure evil. But you got to bend over backward to accommodate people, many of which are very different than you. If you do that, you want people whose parents can pay for it right?

C’mon. If it’s their agenda, why not use their money to reproduce? Why should you pay tax and welfare to help people different than you, wanting things totally different things than you, to reproduce?

Abortion should be free and even mandatory for people that cannot afford children.

If you are rich, you should support abortion like fuck.

Why Don’t We Let the Market Decide Everything?

Which one is faster?

The Flash or a quadriplegic?

The winner get millions of dollars and the losers are killed.

Who can go from 0 to Mach 20 faster? Who can maintain running speed of 1.5c?

Well, that’s obviously the Flash, but what does that have anything to do with being fast?

What about if we just put them in a standard running race. See who win?

You see. It’s complicated.

Such standardized race will only strengthen the privilege of those with faster running parents. We can see this by observing the high correlation between children’s speed at standardized race tests with their parents winning rates in running speed championships.

Obviously there is no causal relationship whatsoever between winning running competition and genetic. Let’s not talk about it okay. It’s privileged. Not genes.

Also 0.00001% of the speedsters win 99.9999 % of running competition. This shows of huge winning gap between super speedsters and underprivilege quadriplegic. It’s a proof of speedster privileges’. This is caused by speedercracy. We got to destroy speedercracy.

Why every runner have to run the same distance? Distance each runners should run should be proportional to their speed. Not reporting speed honestly is speed tax evasion punishable by jail for speed tax fraud.

If we just let people that finish first win, we are only encouraging people to greedily and selfishly running as fast as possible without caring of those they left behind.

Why should people run as fast as possible? We should treat each runner equally. People should spend the same time for each meter travelled.

So people should spend 1 year for first meter, and another year for 2nd meter, and so on. People should reach their distance traveled based on their age appropriate location.

Why is it controversial those demographic groups that tend to run faster win more running championship? What? You don’t believe in winning gaps? You are slowgynist. Why do you hate slow people?

Some motorbikers self identify as normal runners. Not respecting the identity they chose is disrespectful. So we should allow them to compete. The same with those using bullet trains.

Yes, adjusted for running speed, those who run faster tend to win more running championship. However, people with chess hairs are more likely (or less likely, I haven’t really checked) to be a speedster. Hence, measuring people speed in a race is chesshairists. That’s bigotry.

Some minority groups like quadriplegic are so under priviliged that we need to give them extra starting distance to compensate for unfair structural speedocracy in all running race. The extra start distance should be enough to put them beyond the finish line at the start of the race.

Simply using leg muscles to run is disrespectful of distance.

I don’t believe in equality of result. I do think we should have equality of chance. Do you think the Flash have equal chance to win against the quadriplegic on normal standardized race? Statistics and betting odds show otherwise.

No runner is left behind.

Real runners smell the flowers.

Finally, under the new rules that ensure some sense of equality between the Flash and the quadriplegic, the quadriplegic won the race. Well, none of those rules get in the way.

Perhaps, the Flash doesn’t want to win.

Until, today, we have no idea who is faster. The Flash or the quadriplegic.

Meanwhile, someone ask another question.

Which one can produce more children and economically contribute more to the world? Elon Musk or some cavemen in Afghanistan?

Which one have better technology, IQ, and business talents? Which one is richer? Which one can more easily persuade or pay women to give him children.

None of those have anything to do with ability to produce children and contribute economically.

The winner become the future of humanity, the loser go extinct.

Why don’t we just let the market decide?

Why? Why not?

The Path to Truth is Greed and Trade

I think trade and selfishness is the true path to truth

When I was young and actually till I am 30-40 years old I still think that the rich are rich because of productivity. Well, in US yea. But the more I live the more I see you got to pull out many tricks to get rich. Most of which are things that poor people don’t know.

And the reason they don’t know is because you don’t have the same incentive to know the truth unless you are selfish.

For example, pro capitalist people will always say that productivity=wealth. Socialist will always think that exploitation = wealth. Anyone can say anything if their goal is political justification.

But what about if you want to be wealthy? Even a capitalist must admit that having a corporation in ireland is important. That’s not extra productivity.

That’s more like avoiding tax.

Or what about women study? If your goal is to justify socialism, then you can’t even tell if someone is a woman.

If your goal is to knock up smart pretty women, you will want the truth and understand women a lot accurately. Women, for example, are socialist in the street and capitalist in the sheet. So they can say any socialist rhetoric they want. Improve your look. Make more money. Offer pay.

The only thing I can do to make a woman like me is to improve my look. Think about it. Well, that and let them know that the only way they can get my money is if they do something sexy.

All these PUA, confident, respect women, whatever, are all lies. Ignore what she said, look who she fuck. Which is why, in the beginning of relationship, I prefer strippers instead of fucking. Got lots of feedback from more successful sugar daddies.

Trade is also a great path to truth. If you trade, you know others’ preferences.

For example, when sex is not transactional I am confused all the time. What do women like? What can make them like me? They keep saying they like generous guys. After I am generous, they just leave and fuck someone else that pay.

If sex is transactional, everything is crystal clear. Will she produce baby for me? How much I should spend? Well, offer her money for hand job. If she’s not willing to do so, then move on. I no longer spend money on women that don’t even like me.

Do men like younger women?

Just look at stripper and prostitution market. Looks like the women there are losing money after they are no longer young.

With trades and selfishness, our true preferences show.

When we care about others? Not so much.

There are a lot of data when we trade and when we have selfish goals. When we care about others, we are just fooling ourselves, because we don’t.

Why is Pro Choice Not Consistent?

I totally agree with feminists on pro choice. Women’s body means women’s right to abort.

However, why that same women cannot sell sex. It may be exploitative coercive or whatever. But it’s her body. It’s her choice. Not yours.

That same women cannot decide amount of child support before conception. For example, if she wants to have children with a multi millionaire that is only willing to pay $2k a month child support, she can’t. The law says that child support must be a percentage of the non custodial parent’s income.

That same women cannot cooperate to be moved to richer countries where they can fuck richer men. Anti women trafficking laws prevent that. Again, feminists may argue that those laws are necessary because afghanistan women are so poor and so moving them to richer country is coercive. It is precisely because afghanistan women are poor we got to move them to better countries, don’t you think?

Also what about men’s wallet’s men’s choice. Why should any people be forced to pay welfare? What about if the alleged father doesn’t want to pay child support? Why can’t that man has paper abortion?

Shouldn’t women be forced to abort too if she can’t get funding?

Women’s right, even though legitimate, if not done consistently, can be very dangerous.

For example, if women have right to choose any men she wish, but men don’t have right to be shielded from welfare, that means many rich men will end up supporting other’s men’s children.

That means cradle to grave welfare parasites and never ending poverty.

I think people keep bitching about privilege are actually VERY privileged.

If you are not privileged, or just normally privileged, life has medium difficulty. Either you git gud and win, or you are dumb and literally die or slaughtered.

Often, you don’t even have to be dumb. Carthagians aren’t dumb. They were slaughtered. The jews aren’t dumb, they were victims of genocide. The chinese weren’t dumb, they were slaughtered by the mongols, manchus, japanese, and fellow chinese.

Life is normally tough.

However, nowadays, thanks to capitalism, we need to be very dumb to fail. Just look at those single mothers. How dumb can a woman be for not picking the rich and considering money before having sex?

Yes they are losers. But they are not losers because they are not privileged. They are losers because they are very dumb and/or ugly. And yet, they still have children and live despite their dumbness. So they must beĀ VERY PRIVILEGED.

How can someone be that dumb and live? Think about it. Privilege. Only the very privileged can afford being very dumb, lazy, and genetically inferior.

Here is another way to see it. Imagine if I were a black female American citizen. Everything about me is still the same. I still have good IQ to join Mensa. I still won international math competitions. I still score perfect in Math GRE and SAT. I am still ambitious and diligent.

Do you think I would have been successful more easily or less easily?

It would have been a slam dunk.

In fact, women are very privileged. Want great programmers? Open legs. Want investors? Open legs. Fuck. They don’t even need to do so to have rich smart children and grandchildren. Just find someone rich and smart and open legs.

If they can’t do that, they must be ugly. And for ugly women to even live and have children and can afford those children, they must be very privileged by welfare, and socialism and so on and so on.

I think Libertarianism Should be Moderated

I think pure libertarians is impractical. A little compromise and libertarians can actually win either election or even minor civil war. And that should be what we are aiming for.

No welfare? You think majority of starving people will just vote for that? No. Replace welfare with UBI and TAX children. That’s a far more sensible move. You get enough votes. Most children will have richer parents. Only parents that can fully afford their children and pay those extra tax can have children. No more poverty and socialist voters.

Removing government? You fucking kidding me? Instead, make government behaves like corporation. Each citizen has a share. Not much change, citizens can still vote. One man is still one vote (though some guys can buy more citizenships if the country is really fucked up).

With current voting system the bureaucrats decide where the money go. They just use the money to make problems worse. With UBI the market decide where money go. If poor people use it for drugs, LET THEM. Just make sure they don’t breed.

Allow people to sell citizenship. Don’t like it here? Well, someone else want to get in. Okay you can rent or sell your citizenship. Perhaps people should rent first and then if they are sure they can sell.

Open border? Seriously. If you have open border, there are 1 billion chinese that will happily move. Now I know chinese are diligent and smart and stuff. But they have their own interests that don’t necessarily match yours. What about if communist party told them to vote communism? Voting right and open border don’t mix and if I can choose among 2, democracy is still more practical.

There are plenty of muslims that want to turn your country into shariah. Instead of open border, make immigration simpler like buying and selling shares. Sell visa. If you can pay certain amount per year, you can stay. After that you leave.

A mexican want to work in US? He can just compute amount of money he will make, pay visa fee, move back out. It’s already happening. US and many other countries “give” citizenship in exchange of investments. Many countries give citizenship for surrendering soldiers. It can be cheaper than killing enemies soldiers.

Tax children. Do NOT subsidize children. Can’t afford them don’t breed them. Every children deserve good genes, be wanted, and rich parents. If parents are poor there is NO libertarian solution to fix children with poor parents. The most libertarian solution is let the children starve. That’s not purely libertarian because it’s not the children’s fault. It’s also cruel and won’t win vote.

Subsidize abortion and contraception. Again, if poor guys want to have less children, HELP THE FUCK OUT OF THEM. You want another socialist voters voting for more communism? What the fuck. Most poor kids are simply not genetically suited to contribute to economy. Tax land. Not income. It’s much easier to compute. It doesn’t even have to be precise.

Government can say for these zones the tax is this much per square meter. For that zone the cost is that much. If government tax too much the price will drop and people move out. So as long as tax rate doesn’t change too rapidly people that don’t like it can just move. Ideally this should be proportional to reason.

Watching the Boys

I am watching the Boys. Sometimes I wonder who the bad guy is. For example, Huggie put a supe in his trunk. Then he proceed to murder the supe. That’s, like murder. That’s no longer self defense or man slaughter.

The rest, besides Homelander wasn’t that bad. A-Train has problems that usually happen due to criminalization of drugs. A lot of topic. Government is after superior people. That somehow it’s okay to kill or mistreat them.

I wouldn’t murder anyone if I am Homelander. However, I think Homelander is doing what every superior people should do. The minimum of his job and that’s it.

Why insist being like Elon if societies appreciate Putin more. If you can get the same popularity by letting a whole plane fall rather than doing your best to save people, why bother saving anyone?

He should have been paid by result. When people are not paid by result like in corporation but paid by impression and popularity like in democracy, of course, we got bullshit.

Can We Achieve Equality Without Government?

Can we achieve equality of outcome without redistribution of wealth?

My take is, redistribution of wealth will just as likely to increase inequality as it is reduce it. It will however, make overall welfare drop.

Why? Simple. When you redistribute wealth you are no longer a capitalist country. Then those who are smart will find other ways to get ahead. Corruption, dictatorship, tyranny. Those lead to inequality before the law which leads to even more inequality of outcome.

Can we get equality of gender without active discrimination? Without say prohibition or penalty against occupation where genders perform differently?

For example, we have prohibition of jobs where women are paid more than men. In most countries, strippers, prostitutions, and porn stars are illegal jobs. Also we have active discrimination against men. There are quota system. There are maternity leaves, and so on.

Will that reduce inequality of gender? Well. Let’s put it this way. Men need only to squirt sperm to reproduce. Women need to get pregnant for 9 months.

For women, making a lot of money in an engineering job will mean far less children. Jobs are time consuming. It’s hard to properly nurse children and get pregnant if you are also pursuing a career.

So what? To be engineers or programmers, you need talents. Talents are genetic. If all the smart women have less children what happens is future generations will have less women talented as engineers.

Currently, there are only like 34% of women in Mensa. Encouraging women to be programmers and engineers will mean the number will likely be less.

In other word, the very act of discrimination to promote equality will actually lead to huge genetic inequality between men and women. This will lead to even more inequality.

But I can be wrong. Similar reasoning can be said that we can never be free from kings and emperors. Well, we did right? Or do we? I mean if peasants want to be emperors then they get killed along with their whole family or be emperor. And then what? Nope. Being free is possible.

Racial equality may be possible, if we eliminate welfare for example, then people that aren’t able to make money productively in all races will be gone and races will have similar IQ and outcome will be the same.

I don’t think gender equality will ever be possible. Or is it?

The only way I can think gender equality can happen is if we have artificial womb or surrogate mothers and both mom and dad can just pay someone to reproduce. But then again, this too will be politically incorrect again for some reason.