Is Free Market Eugenic?

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Is free market eugenic?

Imagine if we go to a shop. We buy the best product. The best product is not the one everyone wants. The best product for me is the one that makes me happiest at affordable price. A good product is the one whose value exceeds its production cost.

Of course, if a product is “good” for many people, then a lot of people want the product. That creates demand and hence the price/value go up.

When the value exceeds the production cost, the factory will produce more similar product to the point that the marginal revenue match the marginal cost. In other word, we have more such products. The products the customers buy will the products that will be produced more. Future products will be similar to the products that customers buy.

I do not try to make the factories produce better products. I am not eugenic.

I just maximize my own selfish interests. I want the best product, for my self. I am not judging that the iPhone is inferior. I think they do. But that’s not important. Well, I sort of thinking those buying gold plated iPhones are idiots or too rich but it’s what’s good for them. I buy one that’s good for me.

In the process. Smartphones become better and better.

I am not eugenic. No one needs to be eugenic. Yet the whole process is eugenic.

We have better and better products thanks to free market.

Then I go on a date. I look for smart beautiful girls with big titties. Lots of people want the same thing that I do. Those girls are in demand so they usually ask a lot.

Will that improve the number of smart beautiful girls in the future?

How does it works? Will it?

I am not suggesting government or even anyone to try to improve humans’ genetic quality. We just want to get the best. What’s best is subjective and each people want different things. We want what we think is the best for us.

Presume the market take care of all. So people make any kind of reproductive deals among themselves. No welfare. Amount of child support is decided by consent before conception. Minimum regulation. No redistribution of wealth.

Pure market.

Will sexier and sexier girls out reproduce the dumb and fat?

Free This Saint

https://www.change.org/p/freerosspetition-we-seek-potus-s-clemency-for-ross-ulbricht-serving-double-life-for-a-website-realdonaldtrump-free-ross

Now, many of us have enjoyed ganja legalization. Other drugs have followed.

How can that happen? Most people thought that drugs bring violent while thugs control territory and maintain cartels.

This fits nicely to statist rhetoric. They criminalize drugs. Drive the price high. High drug prices create cartels. Those cause violent. Then the authority uses that fact to fed us with the narratives to criminalize even more drugs.

To be honest, the drug themselves, like many high margin service/product tend to attract thugs to control it. I am not blaming anyone here.
One guy, breaks the chain. By creating silk road, he allows people to buy drugs online.

Because of him, no body, not criminalization, not the drug cartels, can raise the drug price.

Long before drugs are legalized, he effectively make it legal, through market mechanism.

Free market reign.

And it works.

And the public see. Drugs are available anyway and it’s okay.

Few get addicted. Few died. Forced legalization works.

And government, wanting votes from voters with common sense, do the obvious. They know the emperor wears no clothes. They know the horse is really a deer. They always know it. But now they know the people know too.

Finally, they legalize harmless drugs. More and more.

Unfortunately, Ross was caught. The evidence is most likely collected illegally. To be frank, he was careless. His bitcoin seized and he’s jailed for life even though he did nothing morally wrong.

He’s a programmer. You don’t like his code, just don’t use it.

Sign the petition. Free this saint.

Do We Have too Much Humans’ Right?

Do we have too much “humans’ right?” Some people say that humans have certain inalienable rights. And they state it without evidence.

Here is another flip of the coins. Someone ask once asked if you have a right, does that mean others have obligation to pay (or in general provide) for those right?

I’ve been thinking about it for a while. I think the answer is yes. And that’s precisely why we do not, or at least many of us do not, consider the right to eat and healthcare as a “right”.

Because if humans have those right automatically just for being humans means the rest of us will have an obligation to pay for it.

Many, obviously do not want such an obligation. So they decided that no you don’t have that right.

Many, usually the one that will benefit from such “right” and are less likely to be taxed to pay for it, will,of course, support such right. Then we will have votes and whoever wins will tend to shift things toward their direction.

In other words, rights, are always there due to some form of consensus.

Humans have right because plenty of us agree that they should have right.

The Arabs don’t have freedom of speech because they don’t have a consensus against humans’ right for freedom of speech.

Most people in US don’t (or didn’t) have a right to get healthcare because there is (or was) not a consensus whether healthcare is humans’ right or not. Expensive humans’ rights like healthcare is impractical in poor countries anyway.

Because right always happen due to consensus of power that be, rights are always alienable.

And I can show this with plenty of evidence. Where is your right to smoke weed?

Someone has alienated those right from you in most states, right? Should have they is a different discussion.

Even a libertarian like me may agree to the criminalization of fentanyl.

Some humans’ rights are beneficial for humans and society. Freedom of speech does not benefit only those who use it. Countries with freedom of speech have less corruption.

Some rights are so cheap they produce benefits than their costs.

There is another problem with humans having too much right. Because a right is often “costly” to provide, humans having too much right can make every human produced/born to be too costly to society.

If every human have right for welfare, healthcare, and education, we can have cradle to grave welfare parasites.

Another strategy is to simply declare that humans do not have right. They can get they right if they “buy” their right first from society. In ancient time, only men can vote, and they also have an obligation like “drafts”.

That would sucks too actually. In general, I think what rights should humans have is an economic issue like everything else in this world that involve humans.

Too much right and we have too much welfare. That’ll drive the industrious to other countries. Too little right and we have a tyrant.

At the end, it’s just like buying and selling stuff in the supermarket. We see how much costs and benefits of granting every humans’ certain rights and we agree and disagree with it.

Hence, all rights will always be alienable.

Extending “right to live” to unborn babies, for example, is very very costly. Not only you lose votes from those who want to kill babies, you actually have to pay for the babies healthcare, welfare, and education if the fetus manages to be born and get citizenship.

From the economic points of view, we should look the other way around when such “rights” are violated. It’s not about principles. It’s about the bottom line.

Perhaps, in an ideal world, we can implement that. In Nanny welfare states like US, I would strongly recommend not to support such rights.

However, a party that wants, or at least pretend to want to, criminalize abortion can also have votes from people that just want to bitch about rising socialism by actively forcing those welfare recipients to be born. In the end, it’s always cost-benefit analysis anyway.

Now things gets complicated here. I just think that’s what’s really going on.

This will Eliminate Poverty

http://www.unz.com/isteve/free-market-eugenics-nonproblem/

and yet drum rolllllllllllllllllllllll Some white people say it’s unethical. Paying women $10k for their eggs is unethical? Paying more based on how specific criteria is unethical? Who is the victim here if I may know?

I don’t usually criticize white culture. I admire many aspects of this. However, every time I see a solution to eliminate poverty and to improve IQ, there is some people that say it’s unethical. And those people are overwhelmingly white. Prohibiting anyone to pay women to donate egg, to have children with them, or to even have sex is genocide against pretty and smart women.

Extra 100 points in SAT scores means extra $2k in eggs price?

Worth it.

Why can’t people see the obvious? Those pretty smart women will have less descendants if the market solution is blocked. It’s totally consensual in every way.

People say eugenics lead to genocide of Jews. To the opposite. Anti eugenics lead to genocide of Jews. People want to get rid their best and brightest because the best and brightest are tough competitors.

And that’s what we have now. Anti eugenics people want to exterminate the best and brightest.

Humans are Factories

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 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.

Ugly women can do men’s job like they always demand and will be out of the gene pool themselves. They’re undesirable so they’re out. It’s how the market works. The problem is they insist that the pretty and smart ones don’t be sex objects too.

You see how whites commit their own genocide?

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, when prostitution is legal, Bob is unfit to be husband or boyfriend. How can Bob compete against guys that can just pay girls for sex and for giving heirs?

Poof. He’s out of the gene pool. Even if we feed and give Bob money, 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.

Birth is Just Immigration from a Different Border

I may not be 100% correct. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think most social-economic impact of birth is like the economic impact of immigration. Birth is just immigration from a different border.

1. Eugenic is like vetted immigration. Most hate the former but support the latter.

2. Free reproductive right is like unvetted immigration. I may settle for this. Free market is awesome. Let the market decide. But I know most people don’t like unvetted immigration but like free reproductive right. That confuses me.

3. Criminalization of abortion is like actively going to Mexico, forcing those least economically viable to come to US and give them citizenship. They don’t want to come. Their mom don’t let them. Left to free market they won’t come. Yet you force them to come and then latter you bitch when those people, obviously, increase welfare, healthcare, tax, and crime. Of course, the conservative are the one that wouldn’t do this the most but is also the one wanting to criminalize abortion the most.

4. Monogamy, high alimony, welfare, and high child support costs against the rich is like actively encouraging the poorest dumbest mexican to come in and preventing the smart and productive ones from coming in. That’s anti eugenic.

You can support one and not the other but if the 2 is equivalent, why? Is there a difference I failed to see? Most immigrants, whether they are legal or not, are most likely contributing positively to typical American voters.

The one that drains your tax is your fellow citizens’ children. Maybe the motive is racist. Fellow americans are the same race anyway. The thing is America is racially diverse. Even in China, for example, people won’t just be happy if governments money go to to other Chinese. That’s why They have 2 child policies to prevent people from having too many children.

Is Abortion Murder?

If abortion murder? Let’s solve this mathematically so we can get what truly matters for “typical” rational voters.

Will criminalizing murder reduce your probability of getting killed? Yes. Most of us are alive simply because murder is illegal.

Will criminalizing abortion reduce your probability of getting killed?

No. To the opposite, abortion reduces crime and poverty. One of the reasons that murder is low is because of the legalization of abortion.

What would someone with IQ 75 do in life? What would you do if you have a child with down syndrome costing extra $20k a year? Create another Microsoft?

Even if abortion is murder, why should you care? Do you care that some kids get murdered in some country in Africa?

Why should you care that it’s in your own country in ways that don’t affect you negatively?

It’s someone else that dies and not your family anyway.

Would you ally with murderers? Let’s put it this way. Say Israel have another war with the Arabs. Who would you side with? Abortion is legal in Israel but illegal in Arab.