Proper Alignments Leads To Efficient Social Contracts

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Humans maximize their profit.

That’s the first and, within reasonably deadly accuracy, the only thing you need to know about humans.

“I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interests.” ­ Winston Churchil

So does equal share for everyone work? What about giving to those who need? What about from each according to his capability and to each according to his need?

Depends…

Guess what, free market; tend to take care of it. A small deviation from free market, called democracy, will take care of it too.

The way we really redistribute wealth is, in a way proportional to ones’ bargaining power.

The most obvious example of this is the correlation between monogamous norm and democracy.

One man one vote soon leads to one man one wife. Maybe most of you never noticed this. However, monogamy only becomes the norm since the Greek.

The justification may go from the east to the west. People will tell stories out of this word in spiritual and religious realms to justify the opinion.

However, what’s really going on is that.

Riddles after riddles. Perhaps there is a key to that riddle. Selfish interests.

Monogamy is a sexual socialism that ration females in equal share to everyone manner. Nothing more.

Humans maximize profit. If we want our countries to prosper, we need to reward those who make our countries prosper more than those who do not.

However, equal share for everyone, giving to those who need, and all those stuffs have a case too, in other areas.

The needy are willing to sell their vote at cheaper price. Hence, it’s very lucrative to “help the needy.”

Some wealth, like natural resources, can only be redistributed, hence it make sense to distribute profits from such extra wealth in equal share for everyone.

What about from those according to their capability and to each according to his need? Well, the market will tend to take care of it. The capable people get paid the most when they do what they are capable. People are also willing to pay more for what they need.

Libertarians need more vote. Perhaps, if we’re less stingy and more flexible in some areas, we can push the world to other areas we prefer better.

How Do We Really Redistribute Wealth

How do we distribute wealth among us?

Some people would say that we distribute our wealth proportional to productivity within capitalistic society.

I do not mean how we distribute our wealth within capitalistic society. I also do not mean how we “should” distribute our wealth.

I mean how we actually distribute our wealth.

Wealth and natural resources gets divided roughly proportional to political power.

For example, in North Korea, the wealth goes to Kim Jong Il. In Arab, the oil money goes to the King.

Capitalism is simply a special case of those norms. In capitalistic society people have strong commitment to reward power to those who productively earn it.

Again, in capitalistic countries, those who earn money productively have a certain political power, namely power over their wealth.

It’s your money means you decide how you should spend your money. If it’s your time and life, then you decide how you should spend your time and run your life.

You control what you own.

That’s why the consumers get the most benefit within capitalistic countries.

In Indonesia, for example, governments’ officials are often able to override customers’ preference.

That happens in various governments projects, like public schools, clothing laws, doctors’ mandatory social practices, anti gambling laws, anti drug laws etc.

When that happens, entrepreneurs do not try to please customers. They try to please governments’ officials through bribe.

In US, people that get rich are those who invent better light bulbs, and make more efficient system.

In Indonesia, people that get rich are those who are close to governments’ officials. Indonesians’ police leaders are very rich.

But why wealth is distributed proportional to each party’s political power?

Not all transactions are consensual.

For example, say you earn your money productively. Say a robber puts gun in your head. There will be a reasonable probability that the robbers will get your money even though he does nothing productive to you.

Things sort of work that way in a society. Sometimes, a group of people gets bigger share, not because that group is more productive. They get bigger share because they have military and political power to press their demand.

It’s comforting to believe in a morality value. We believe that US do not nuke China because it’s the right thing. We believe that China do not nuke US also because it’s the right thing.

It doesn’t work that way. Life is a gun fight. The way we don’t get killed is by either killing the others or making credible threat not to kill us.

The ways we make credible threats are by actually do some killing. That’s why I support death penalty for those who really ask for it.

Robbers are not really better of compared to under capitalism. Robbing sets precedents that go back to them.

It’s natural that the one more capable gets bigger share.

For example, less capable individuals, out of envy bigotry, demands total redistribution of wealth under communism.

When that happens, those who are smarter will turn into dictators rather than productive entrepreneurs.

So it does take brain to get rich whether you’re in a communist country or in capitalistic country.

It takes capital too. It costs tens of thousands of dollars to buy a governments’ position in Indonesia.

So when an official in places, his first agenda is trying to recoup his money and make as much profit as possible. Just like business.

Commitment to freedom and meritocracy put power in ways that benefit those who are productive.

This motivates people to be productive and encourage productivity. This in turn benefits the society as a whole.

Free market does not create disparity of wealth. Free market simply changes the way such disparity is made.

Is Porn A Religious Issue?

In front of TV, I saw a bunch of people discussing the merit of the new anti porn regulations.

A Muslim candidate says that the anti porn regulation is not a Muslim issue. She argued that in US, the Christians oppose porn too.

This while in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, kids are free to watch and buy porn in various open markets.

I agree with her.

Porn issue is not religious issue, but hatred issue.

The way we evolve is when we’re not at war we’re in a race. Freedom means competition. So those who are uncompetitive hate freedom.

And those people will use religious issues to gain followers.

The religions that they use are usually the religion of majority.

In US, that’s Christianity. In Indonesia, that’s Muslims.

But why religions?

Because you cannot use science to support prejudices. It’s difficult. More over, scientific conclusions tend to have higher accuracy. Hence, it’s not very flexible.

So bigots with hidden agenda against those giving better offer usually resort to religions.

In fact, that’s probably why so many religious people oppose porn. Opposition of porn is what makes religions sale in the first place.

Humans’ maximizes profit. However, humans also want to inflict suffering toward others.

Humans will usually compare a benefit a certain freedom will do to some people. If some people are able to take advantage of a particular freedom way more than them, humans will tend to oppose that freedom.

For example, beautiful women are benefited more by porn than the ugly women because beautiful women can make more money in porn. Hence, ugly women oppose porn. It’s the same reason why many poor males oppose polygamy.

Religions teach self sacrifice and that does motivate many humans to teach religions to others.

It doesn’t change the sort of people that demand violation of individual freedom. Uncompetitive bigots that hate those who give better offers more than they hate thieves, burglars, and robbers.

Land Lease, Capitalism, And Holy War

Do you know how much does it cost to lease a land for 60 years? About the same with the price of the land.

Think it this way. How much will it cost to rent a land for 1 year? Probably not much different than the interest rate for the value of the land, assuming the price of the land is constant. If not, it’ll be about the same with the difference between interest rate and the price increase of the land.

If it’s higher, people will borrow infinite money from banks, buy land, and rent it away. I know people do and make money doing it. However, let’s ignore this arbitrage for a while. Their profit really comes from taking calculated risk and work required to settle the deal. That’s why they can’t do that infinitely.

How much will it cost to rent a land for 2 years? Obviously more than it would cost to rent a land for 1 year. However, the present value of the second years rent is less than the first year rent. That’s because the money will grow in the bank first for 1 year and then used to pay the rent.

How much will it cost to rent a land for 1 billion years? You guess it. Buying a land is equivalent with renting it forever. However, most of the value is in the next 60 years.

Assuming the price different between interest rate and land price increase is 5%, rent cost of 60 years of land should worth 94.64% of the land price. If the rate difference is 10%, the 60 years rent cost should worth 99.67%.
You see why the British eventually return Hong Kong to Chinese? So they can get something as good as owning the land while letting the Chinese government, weak at that time, to safe face.

People kill each other because they think they can get the land permanently. However, they will not kill each other for a 60 years lease of the land. It’s kind of strange isn’t it? Could this be a solution for peace?

Imagine if UN or somebody told the Jews and Palestinians. Look, one of you will own the land for 60 years; the other will own it after ward. Both will jump wanting the second option, which worth only .33% of the economic value.

Things get better when we see that capitalists often earn way higher than interest rate.

Of course, that’s naïve. People can’t just make money and buy land. Once a country controls a land, they’ll make laws saying that foreigners cannot buy land.

The American take lands from the Indians through genocide and the rest of us should say that it’s American land. I wouldn’t argue that it’s wrong because at that time, that’s really how things work.

I wouldn’t say its right either because it really sets a bad precedent. It’ll tell the Chinese, the Indians, the Arabs, and every one else that if you want more land, the way to do it is to attack another country and kill of the native inhabitants. That’s the kind of precedent that can go against any of us, including American. We don’t want that kind of precedent do we?

When the Japanese buy the land from American or when some immigrants peacefully work for American, some Americans call that invasion. Now, that’s wrong. We can raise our middle fingers for all assholes that call peaceful trade an invasion. That’s really the source of our entire problem.

We live in such abundance world under free market. However, often wealth earned through merit and productivity, like Bill Gates’ wealth is called dirty. The earners are called greedy. And the wealth is often taxed. After that, those who earn it fairly are often massacred like capitalists in communist countries.

However, people often earn wealth, like land, by killing each other. The process is called holy war. The land is called holy land. All those are agreed by most people according to some holy bull shits.

No wonder we kill each other all the time.

If we show more respect to wealth earned productively, the Jews and Arabs can cooperate to earn more money. Those who really want the land can outbid the other. The “loser” can invest heavily in poor African countries that need more investors. In no time, they’ll own the whole Africa while helping many poor people.

What we need is a better game. A game where the greatest among us are those providing the best service to the most customers. What we need is a way to govern nations the way we govern our self. That game is called capitalism which we all should embrace.

But that’s not the game. Not yet. It’s getting there.

Hence, here they are, like all of us, busy killing each other for a tiny piece of land where we could have cooperate to conquer other planets, the whole universe, or, at least, eradicate poverty.

I Could Have Died

I was driving home from a marriage party. My girlfriend is driving because I can’t drive. Suddenly someone yell swear words at us. Then that guy stops in front of us. We apologize not understanding what’s wrong. They claimed that my gf hit brake suddenly. They look like they want to fight and keep yelling at us telling us to get out.

So I thought may be I should bluff them out. I yell at them to come if they want to fight. They call my bluff.

Then they start banging on the window. I was quite scared. However, I sort of knew that if I look scared, I am death. They talked about all this that we’re the one that’s wrong but we’re the one that get mad.

I sort of know that morality, right and wrong is all bull shit. We strong we win, we win we’re right and that’s all there is to it.

When we’re weak, the smallest mistake, even no mistake, can be used as justification for the greatest prosecution.

History is filled with strong forces slaughtering the weak and than latter blames the weak with unverifiable vague accusations. If there is any curve that fits the dot is that people will kill and rob when they see it is profitable to do so. And that explains virtually all war.

The only thing that’ll stop them from fighting with me is a deterrence, or implied possibility that I can cause much harm to them.

And the process work double against me too. I may win if I fought them. If there is a 10% chance I lost, that’s not worth the risk. I got nothing to gain from this fight.

I always want to test my judo somewhere outside soft mattresses against someone that don’t know how to fall properly. One of them looks like he’s over 50 years old and look light weight enough. I can do more than slamming him with imbalance causing technique. I can actually lift him out and slam his head ground first for maximum hit point crunching with asphalt flooring, I can score an instant kill or permanent injury. Easy frag.

Then, I can bite of the face of the other one Hannibal Lecter style.

However, I don’t know how to grab someone without Judo clothes. What about if they bring knifes. What about if they know Judo, or Karate too?

So I tied to speak calmly. So I told them that I don’t want to fight and want to apologize. I told them that I want to make peace. I told them that they don’t seem to be appeasable so I have no choice but to play tough. However, I need to ensure that I don’t look like I am giving an unconditional surrender mode. Suddenly my gf is already out of the car. Oh shit… She apologized but speaks sternly.

I was concern with her safety. I tried to calm them down and get out of the car. If I get out too early I may provoke unnecessary fight. So I get out of the car while watching their hand for instant grab in case things go wrong.

To my surprise, they praised me. They said that it’s the proper way to apologize, getting out of the car first rather than hiding behind. Sensing that the tenses are lower I shake their hand and explain the situation. Than someone from the crowd told them that we got to move because we make traffic jam. The hotheads seem to get offended and then have arguments with the crowd member. I was happy that they had other fights. We use that opportunity to calmly leave.

I think they have the same problem with me. They want to bully around anyone they can. However, if there is a 10% chance they may lose, it’s not worth their time. So they pick on other victims. The reason why they don’t choose to fight me is not because I properly apologized, of course. This guy gets so mad over hitting a brake. My apologizing simply allows them to avoid fighting without losing face. Perhaps they saw that I am taller than them. Perhaps they saw that there is significant probability that someone that bark back may have something on them.

Latter my gf told me that she dares to get out because of the crowds. She knows no body is going to beat women up in front of crowds. I realized that she’s could have been save all along.

If I just keep yielding they’ll think I am weak and I’ll be in a fight. If I just keep barking, I would end up in a fight and I could have died. Somehow we did a right combination of yielding and playing tough. I was lucky. I could have died.

All my life I prepare for every possibility that can happen in my business. I could lose it all for not doing the right thing at some critical moment.

Maybe I should have been braver in my business. Looks like my gf is better at negotiating in tough circumstances.

When I got home, my dad taught me to grab people skin and ear if they don’t wear something we can grab. Also an unblock-able elbow strike before seoi nage throw can be effective. I wonder if I can remember that the next time I am in similar circumstances again.

Many told us to play rational. That we must held back our feeling so we don’t fight. However, our feeling is a fine tuned algorithm that sort of work for billions of years of evolution. Just playing nice to people that are hostile can actually lead to even more extreme hostility. In complicated cases like that, I think how we feel to act is our best chance.

I guess different people just have different level of guts. Me, I just strike if I am 99% sure I’ll win. Others would do that for 60%. Perhaps we need to take into account profit gained. If not fighting means a fight and a lost anyway, fighting should be good.

Moral of the story is that most conflicts don’t end up in fight. People just bark at each other while trying to judge each other’s relative strength. When intensive to fight is small, they usually make peace.

Most war happens due to incorrect perception of power. Also, art of war in 13 chapters say that those who are arrogant are the one less likely wanting to fight.

Of course, sometimes both sides call the bark and voila.

Peace, is not something within our control. In fact, excessive effort to achieve peace can lead to illusion of weakness and more fight. And this sort of thing is the sort of thing we should do to know rather than learn through theory.

Unconditional surrender and yielding can be far more dangerous than fighting, as the Banu Nadir must have lately realized as told in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Nadir & http://genetips.com/2006/06/26/main-use-of-religion/

What do you think?