🚀 go-pugleaf

Test failed.

<hateenvyvermins@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1146851458.975556.131180@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> This article is dedicated to:
>
> A man I met, with most of his body heavily burned, simply because he
> was a Chinese during the 1998 May Riot in Indonesia.
> Lots of capitalists that are slaughtered during the cultural evolution.
> Ten thousands of peaceful smugglers that are massacred in Banda island
> by the Dutch for conducting peaceful spice trade and all that are
> similar to them.
> All minority groups and individuals that face discrimination, even
> genocide, for economically contributing too much for their society.
> All customers that have to pay higher products due to protection of
> tariff and trades.
> Productive people that are fined with income tax for the victimless
> crime of making honest money.
> Smart students that are slowed down so not to move too fast.
> Industries that do not get subsidy, or even banned to protect
> unproductive industry and laborers that earn much less due to such
> restrictions.
> Poor starving people that could have been rich had their countries
> choose to embrace free market.
> Women and males that are trapped in unhappy marriage which they have a
> hard time getting out.
> Women and children that have lots of their best choices taken under the
> pretext of protection.
> Immigrants and refuges.
> Is welfare part of capitalism?
>
> In short, no. In consensually, punishing the productive through income
> tax to reward parasitic behavior is the biggest affront against the
> principle of free market. In fact, from many governments intervention
> in economy, the one that proponents of free market often oppose the
> most is welfare.
>
> However, when we look further, capitalism and welfare is not really
> total opposites. Most importantly, properly done, a straight forward
> welfare program can cause less market distortion, and hence an
> efficient replacement to buy votes from losers, than farm subsidies,
> public schools, minimum wage, trades restrictions, tariffs, and sex
> laws. If it's done by taxing wealth, rather than income, the amount of
> market distortion can be minimized further.
>
> Welfare is also cheap. It'll cost $5000/year to a welfare recipient
> in USA, for example. However, we need to remember that the
> recipients' lifestyle worth only $500. The other $4500 goes to
> implicit welfare due to higher living costs. That implicit welfare
> includes minimum wage, immigrations laws, and food subsidy, or
> protections.
>
> If somehow a straight forward explicit welfare program can replace all
> relatively more evil governments' interventions, then capitalists are
> probably better of not opposing welfare so much. Even Milton Friedman
> supports schemes called guaranteed minimum income, which is like
> welfare but with much less market distortion.
>
> That's not where the similarity ends. One of the main creeds of
> capitalism is that consent and competition should be preferred over
> force. Without that consent, anyone can simply make us choose to make
> our self worst of under the pretext that it is for our own good. In
> fact, most laws against consensual acts can be traced down to
> protection of some disgruntled competitors often done under the pretext
> of the consenting parties' own good.
>
> Anti prostitution and anti polygamy laws, for example, is there to
> ration females to poor dumb males under the pretext of protecting the
> consenting women. Of course, all natural resources tend to be rationed
> somewhat proportional to ones' voting power. And that does explain
> why democracy and anti polygamy laws go hand in hand too. One man one
> vote soon leads to one man one wife.
>
> Well, at least Matt Ridley agrees with me and he's a well known
> mainstream scientific researchers. I guess that's also why so many
> uncompetitive people want to ensure that evolution theory is not taught
> in school. You can also read a famous psikiatrist book, "The road less
> traveled," you'll see that life long monogamous marriage is just a trap
> to prevent highly desirable people from being available to those who
> they want more, and romance is just the lure to that trap.
>
> On the women side, anti pornography laws is really meant to prevent
> highly desirable women from advertising her assets and hence protecting
> less pretty women from the higher industry standard a public display of
> superior desirability might cause. Countries that embrace porn tend to
> have prettier women. Where did all the unsexy ones go? They're all
> shifting out of the gene pool, and hence are doing their best to oppose
> porn preaching religious doctrines that men should judge women based on
> any features but beauty, which they can't offer.
>
> Another issue is consent. Welfare program is not consensual; however,
> it's relatively more consensual then civil war. In ancient time, when
> we have different ideological opinions, we end up killing each other to
> proof who are "right." The Catholic would kill the Gnostic, the
> Sunni would kill the Shiah. One King would kill the other. A younger
> prince will argue that the older prince is demon. Might makes right.
>
> Such differences of opinions are of course solved with war, which is a
> very cost inefficient way to know who're "right." However it does
> work in some subjective practical sense. If we look in the past and try
> to figure out whether the Gnostic or the Catholic is the one that's
> heretical or "right" respectively, we need only to see who won. The
> Gnostics are slaughtered, so they must be the heretic, or do they? At
> least I bet there are way more people in the world that think that way
> than the other way around, excluding me actually.
>
> It doesn't matter how many books many institutionalized religions
> burned, how much restrictions of freedom of speech and irrationality
> they embraced, how many witnesses they snuffed outs and all other
> techniques that would not have stand the scrutiny of a peer reviewed
> scientific journal, or even a reasonable jury in the court of law. Too
> many people don't believe who are right and reasonable, they believe
> who are mighty. Right or wrong, the win will always become right
> anyway.
>
> Now, under democratic context, we don't kill those who oppose us,
> rather we try to persuade enough people to join our cause. How do we
> persuade them? By money of course. Welfare program is then a reasonably
> cost efficient method to buy votes.
>
> When too many people are on a side, we will sort of know that going to
> war will hurt the other side; hence we comply anyway with the whim of
> majority avoiding the costly alternatives. While not ideal, this is
> indeed how right and wrong is really decided, proper assessments of
> each sides' bargaining position and mutually cherished compromised line
> of war, plus a bunch of lies covering what's going on to safe each
> sides' face.
>
> No matter how noble the purpose, lies and prejudices lead to
> misunderstanding, that leads to more war. Hence, the best contribution
> is simply to unmask all lies.
>
> All in all, peaceful democracy is indeed a more cost efficient ways to
> measure ones' bargaining position. While democracy often lead to
> decisions opposites of freedom, like popularly supported victimless
> crime, income tax, and welfare, it's indeed relatively more cost
> efficient than civil war.
>
> That's not when the coherency end. Various natural laws restrict
> various possible political outcomes. We can't expect a stone will fly
> to the sky when we drop it as much as we cannot expect a human to be
> generally unselfish. If we want to kill our enemies, we'll do well
> dropping a big stone on top of our enemies head rather than dropping
> the stone on top of our own head expecting the stone to somewhat
> magically fly to the enemies head.
>
> The same way, we can't demand market distortion and expect that the
> best and brightest among us to still magically be a nice tax payer
> rather than dictators and corruptors. In a country where selling porn
> or building a good franchise chain is more difficult and less lucrative
> than becoming a dictator, guess what the smart would end up doing? Ask
> Saddam.
>
> If we want rich and prosperous countries, we must know that it will and
> only will happen when we properly align individuals' interests with
> productivity.
>
> Such coherency tends to make certain things come in package with
> another. We can expect that moving electric field will induce magnetic
> field. The same way, in life, we observe similar things. Communism and
> socialism, for example, always come in package with dictatorship and
> corruptions when smart people realize that being dictators pay more
> than building a business empire.
>
> To the opposite capitalistic countries comes in package with softer
> deals for losers, such as, guess what, welfare.
>
> We know from our economic classes that free market capitalism brings
> prosperity within market mechanism. However, it turns out that the
> prosperity that free market brings also profit the less successful
> beyond market mechanism. Capitalism and the prosperity that come with
> it tend to facilitate ideological changes in ways that benefit the less
> successful. One such ideological change is the popular support for
> losers' benefits. One such benefit is, guess what, welfare.
>
> The most obvious samples of such ideological shifts the free market
> bring are the elimination of slavery in US. What happened? As usual,
> the northern part of America is an industrial country. At that time,
> steel industries are relatively more modern than the farming industry.
> Higher tech industry increase labors' productivity. When labor's
> productivity goes up, entrepreneurs will want to hire as many workers
> as possible. Hence, labors' salary will go up. This will kill of
> industries with less labor's productivity. At the end, the marginal
> productivity of labors in the least productive industry will go up.
> That value is labors' salary.
>
> Under competitive equilibrium, the more productive and efficient a
> person is, the more he benefits everyone in the chain of productivity
> except those similar to him. Hence, an entrepreneurs coming up with
> ways to improve labors' productivity would benefit everyone,
> including workers and consumers, at the expense of other entrepreneurs
> and capitalists. Read that Karl Marx!
>
> Then what? When labors' salary goes up, obviously labors will move to
> the employers that pay them higher. Hence, farm labors in the south
> want to move to the north. They can't do so legally though because
> they were slaves. Hence, the northern capitalists in US want to free
> slaves so they can hire more workers. And then the southern capitalists
> in US want to keep slavery. This then results in war. The bigger the
> labors' productivity, the more intensive capitalists have to free
> slaves. The more supporters there will be on a cause the more likely
> the cause won. Hence, slaves were freed.
>
> Unfortunately, people still want to help losers and buy votes from
> those who are too expensive and too stubborn to switch. That explains
> why the farms in US gets subsidy.
>
> If losing means not as successful as the other, then there will always
> be losers. However, we see how free market shifts the worlds' system
> in ways that benefits the losers too. Unlike the commies' propaganda,
> capitalism does not cause or even enlarge disparity of wealth.
> Capitalism only changes the way such disparity are earned to the
> benefits of all.
>
> At the end of the warring states period in China, the king of Chin,
> Shih Huang Ti, and his prime minister, Li Si were the winner. Within
> one generation they have all their family slaughtered. If that's what
> winning means, what did losing means in pre-capitalistic countries? In
> ancient time, losing meant having all the males slaughtered, enslaved,
> or castrated and all the females raped and winning means risking your
> whole family slaughtered by rebels. In socialists countries the rich
> are corruptors and dictators that slice each other throats while the
> poor are starving.
>
> Now, thanks to the prosperity only free market can bring, losing means
> they can leave on welfare, with plenty of chance to climb back and
> proof their worth, like J. K. Rowling. Now, slaves are so free and
> highly paid thanks to increase in labors' productivity. In fact, when
> slave jobs are moving to China under globalization, slaves in US
> refused to be emancipated and want to keep their slave jobs in US
> rather than evolving into entrepreneurs. So, much for the land of the
> free and the place of the brave. Some people don't mind dying for
> what they believe in but are too scared to start a business. Evolutions
> will fix that I guess.
>
> Free market gives abundances to everyone. The benefits the free market
> brings benefit those less capable from being successful not only within
> the system but also through non market mechanism, like the ending of
> slavery and the start of reverse slavery we call welfare. But how do
> those really work? Is there a general principle?
>
> Each of us is greedy and selfish that we want as many as possible for
> us. Humans' greed and selfishness is an undisputable scientific
> facts, as sure as the sun rise in the east, as sure as a stone will
> fall to the ground pulled by gravity. We're not just greedy and
> selfish. Greed and selfishness doesn't explain all the war,
> suffering, and poverty we face.
>
> In fact, greed is good. Properly aligned, under free market, the
> greatest among us shall be the one productively providing the best
> service to the most customers. Blessed be the productive because
> they'll be rich. This will encourage higher and higher standard of
> living that we are currently enjoying.
>
> Free market allows those who serve more to grow richer. To those who
> have more profit, to those more capital are given. Even kingdom of
> heaven don't mind using this nice positive feedback effect. Who needs
> new deals to break up companies?
>
> Also, women prefer the rich. The next time you watch soap opera, make
> sure it's made in some country with the highest IQ in the world, like
> Hong Kong.
>
> Free sex means richer males will consensually attract and mate with
> more women producing more kids. That's the whole point of getting
> rich by the way. Duh?
>
> In fact, that's what being a living human male is all about:
>
> 1. Gain control ship of as much money or power as possible.
>
> 2. Attract or in anyway acquire as many females as possible.
>
> 3. Make kids.
>
> 4. Use that kids as tools to make grand children.
>
> You bet it's right because it's science. Of course, they don't teach
> this important fact in biology class because government interfere in
> education.
>
> Hence, when we're free, without genocide, without war, even with
> humanitarians aids given to appease enemies, the meek will indeed
> inherit the earth.
>
> More than greedy and selfish, some humans are simply not humans because
> they embrace the root of all evil, envy. That explains why we have so
> many laws against mutually beneficial consensual acts and governments
> regulations to protect us from our own choices. The truth is, all those
> laws and restrictions are more often not there to protect stupid people
> from making mistakes. All such laws are there to prevent the smart from
> making the right choices.
>
> That's why, for example, every body has to move equally slowly in
> school, to prevent the smart from moving faster. That's why various
> reproductive techniques are politically incorrect proportional to the
> expected quality of genetic material that will be duplicated. In
> particular, life long monogamous marriage, free sex, prostitution,
> polygamy, and cloning are sequences that both have increasingly
> expected value of genetic quality outcome and politically
> incorrectness.
>
> In Europe and China, the smart monks are encouraged not to get married.
> When some minority groups don't buy the bullshit and hence greatly
> improving their productively earned wealth and genetic quality, such
> minority groups somehow become victims of genocide.
>
> Life is like a real time strategy games. That means when we're not at
> war, we're in a race. That's simply how we evolve. Morality,
> religions, and ideologies, are stuffs created by really smart people to
> persuade us to run backward.
>
> Peace means we're in a race. Freedom means we are in a competition.
> Some people just don't want to compete. Hence, they craft lies and
> prejudices against those who are in front preventing progress to
> prosperity.
>
>I'll tell you the scientific truth. It's from the fruit we knows
> the tree. Anyone opposing free trades and globalization is more evil
> than Hitler or Nazi. If only Japan and German could have acquired
> natural resources through consensual peaceful trade, Nazism wouldn't
> have been popular there and Hitler wouldn't have risen to power. With
> his mass hypnotic skills, he may have ended up as seminar speaker I
> guess.
>
> If only those who had wanted to incite the Second World War see all the
> miracles and prosperity the free market brings, they would have
> repented and embrace free market. Yet, after all the prosperity and
> wealth the free market is bringing to all of us, still many people
> choose to oppose competition, and hence, miss-properly align our
> interests from productivity. That is the cause of all evil in the
> world.
>
> All causes opposing free market can be negotiated and appeased.
> However, if the very thing that a group of people want to prevent is
> the success of the others, then the situation is pretty much kill or be
> killed zero sum game.
>
> How does such situation usually end up? What would be our optimum
> solutions for such situation?
>
> Under normal circumstances, an optimum solution of any business
> decisions is a solution where the marginal revenue equals to the
> marginal costs. Hence, in a zero sum game, each party will try to
> maximize its benefit to that point. Sometimes, the marginal costs have
> a spike. There is a certain point where increasing a resources
> allocation beyond a certain point will create adverse costs. For
> example, increasing the number of labors will increase revenue.
>
> After a certain point, increasing one additional labor will mean buying
> a new machine or building a new factory. We may end up choosing to do
> it, we may not. In either case, discretions are the better part of the
> valor when it comes to that line.
>
> The same way, in most countries, each of us can increase our profits
> using property we own or consensually rent. When we maximize our profit
> that way, the public will, ideally and some times truly, not interfere,
> and defend us from being prevented to enjoy our "rights" by others.
> However, when we start using others' property to maximize our gain,
> say by stealing, public opinions may shift from protecting us to
> against us.
>
> Hence, the choice whether we should steal or not depends on the extra
> costs of crossing the politically correctness line of war. If a person
> sees that the potential gain justifies the increase costs of public
> support shifts, he'll still steal and make a great career out of it.
> Otherwise he'll stop stealing while coming up with a pretext to
> justify his cowardly decisions, such as morality.
>
> But what do the people choose their reaction to a specific act like
> stealing? They do so based on their sense of fairness, justice, and
> right-wrong discernment. How do people get that sense? From ideology.
> The ideology, religions, or whatever, then decides the line of war
> where the rest of us should consider before crossing. But how does the
> line gets drawn? By estimates of bargaining position.
>
> Let's examine an example. Is the King (or Queen?) of England the King
> of France? Don't know. How do we know? In the beginning, a ruling
> class from France went to England and become king of England. Then they
> lost control of France. Hence, king of England wanted to take back the
> controls they have lost. Well, such conflicts are solved by war. In
> this particular case, the war lasted 100 years.
>
> The British attacked France and successfully route knights with long
> bows. Then, the Frances stroke back driving the British back to their
> isolated islands. However, the France cannot move further and go all
> the way to attack British because of the Strait of Dover separating the
> two nations. Finally both sides realized that the straits somehow
> became the sacred line of war. It's not auspicious to cross the line
> of war for either side. The France, having more army and larger
> population would beat up the British on land, and the British being
> stronger at sea can always repulsed France sea invasion. Hence, we got
> peace.
>
> Such natural separators like straits and mountains explain why
> Europeans are divided into many different countries. The Chinese, not
> having that natural line of war, end up getting united all the time.
>
> Now, let's get back to the question whether welfare is part of
> capitalism. If all of us have just enough food, and some people don't
> work, what would we end up doing to those who are not productive?
>
> Humans' basic instincts and preferences lead to gene pool survival.
> When food is scarce, such as when the people demand centralized
> planning, it would serve ones' gene pool survival to slaughter the
> parasites rather than sharing food to them. That's because sharing
> food to those who do not earn it means starving ones own self. In fact,
> humans will kill each other to literally eat each other when food is
> scarce. Such is what happened in China and Rusia when centralized
> planning, governments' intervention in economy, and prejudices
> against successful capitalists became the norm.
>
> However, when food and money are abundance, such as when the people
> embrace free market, fighting the parasites might cause more gene pool
> survival lost than feeding them. On the other hand, simply giving and
> yielding toward threaten will motivate people to keep pushing us
> around. Moreover, giving in to those who can use force against us will
> motivate countries to build arms rather than say, better video games.
>
> Hence, one possible strategy to minimize open war while still properly
> aligning ones interest with other individuals around them is to give to
> those who ask nicely and ask less. As free market brings a lot of
> abundance, those who are needy can be appeased much more cheaply than
> those who are envy, and hence, we got welfare program.
>
> To be frank, I'd rather see the unproductive people have bigger TV
> rather than letting them make more kids. It's more humane, and
> cheaper. Guess what? Most people that know they're not very capable
> either would rather have that too.
>
> Back to the France vs British. If only both sides have realized the
> true bargaining positions of each, they wouldn't have to resort to
> such expensive 100 years war right? The thing is, the 100 years war are
> the most credible and accurate ways to measure ones' bargaining
> position. War shows which one is stronger, and hence leads to a mutual
> understanding of where the line of war might be.
>
> If only we can wave our gun and scare the enemies, it'll be great.
> However, the only threats that are credible are those actually done.
>
> How do we know a cause's bargaining position? Democracy might give
> some light by counting the number of those who are in favor or against
> what we consider lesser evil. However, number counting can be
> deceiving. We hold this truth with plenty of evidences, that humans are
> inherently different.
>
> We have difference capability and preferences, and hence different
> choices and outcome. It's useless to lay net in front of anything
> with wings. Those who are genetically predestined to be successful will
> get rich anyway whether through honest capitalistic means or through
> dictatorship.
>
> Those who are small in numbers can hence be quite strong. Preventing
> the smart from making money honestly will then turn them into
> corruptors and dictators. When the Chileans demand to prosecute their
> entrepreneurs, they end up getting a dictator, the way any country that
> demand slavery over freedom deserves. Fortunately, Pinochet are
> relatively benign compared to others dictator and embrace free market
> giving the miraculous prosperity that the Chilean now enjoy.
>
> Now, US government arrested his daughter for a crime of tax evasion. An
> act that wouldn't have been a crime if making honest money is free.
> The miracle of Chili becomes the model of China's moving to free
> market. It also helps to end communism all over the world peacefully.
> If capitalists fail to show thanks to Pinochet family, I don't know
> what would happen to all of us.
>
> So, beyond number counting, the more accurate ways are then through
> skirmishes. When people cross the public's opinion line of war and we
> don't strike back, the line of war will shift against the coward by
> precedence. By fighting back, we'll then have a more accurate
> knowledge of which one the public would agree with.
>
> Hence, it's very important to retaliate to what others do to us,
> either good or bad. It's a pleasure to serve my friends, it's also
> a pleasure to wipe out envy enemies that are on our ways, should my
> friends wish or don't mind.
>
> When a fraudster tricks my brother over $3,900, my main concern is not
> to get my money back. My main concern is to get the fraudster to jail
> even if that will costs far more money than the $3,900. When a thief
> steals my money on 2001, my concern is also not to get my property
> back. What's just is to encourage the whole world to post any thieves
> conviction records on the net to prevent further larcenies.
>
> It makes me wonder though. Why people consider it cruel to damage a
> thief or a fraudster' reputation? The mere acts of making honest
> money are punishable by income tax. When Everett O. Lasher makes an
> argument in court, the case leads to $5000 fine, and understandably, a
> suicide. The mere acts of successfully fending of ones' home from
> thieves lead to a life long jail term for Tony Martin. Thousands would
> march against WTO demanding harsh laws to punish those exercising
> consensual trades. In Iran, the mere acts of switching religions can
> lead to death penalty.
>
> In Indonesia, new laws are being drafted giving years in prison for
> kissing in public. Of course, public rape during May riot are still far
> from being punished.
>
> This while murderers of Vincent Chin went free without jail term.
> Thousands would march to end death penalty against murderers. In
> Indonesia, religious fundamentalists can come to a house and destroy
> properties from houses providing consensual entertainment with polices
> watching. Those people often get away or lightly punish.
>
> If consensual productive acts are punished while damaging inconsensual
> forces are not, soon, all highly productive people would end up in gas
> chamber after the next Cultural Revolution, or what ever. Those who are
> left are those smart enough to be dictators enslaving the rest of us.
>
> Prejudices reminds me of an envy old hag that's so determined to ruin
> my reputation for being friendly to her and her friends, after her own
> friendly communication. I never intended to fraud anyone or steal her
> money yet I got my reputation ruined. I am very disappointed to see
> that there are people in the world that want to bring me down more than
> they want to bring down a thief.
>
> I have tried to resolve the issue privately by suggesting to that thing
> that she's really not important enough for anyone to pretend to be her
> friend. Moreover, I didn't need her as a friend. All this was just a
> damage-less misunderstanding caused by her own friendly communication
> which I could simply publicly straighten out. At least, it used to be.
>
> However, that vermin really wished to get the issue public telling lies
> that she never communicated with me, possibly to boost that things'
> feeling of importance her genes deny her. Well, if she got so mad over
> a few friendly introductions, I can only wonder what that thing would
> do when it finds out that her true envy natures are revealed to 55000
> newsgroups several times. It'll happen again and again whenever I
> feel like.
>
> Hence, just look for "envy vermin" on the net to find out what's
> really going on including what she said privatedly. Let the public
> decide who are more honest, rational, scientific, and straightforward.
> Let the market decides which one are worthy and who are worthless.
> It's a great mistake to ever consider such thing as a friend, a
> mistake no body should do. It's her kind that turns people of from
> making money productively.
>
> Hopefully we can undermine public opinions against all form of envy
> motivated lies and prejudices. At the end, we'll greatly weaken laws
> against victimless crime and easily out compete all envy people out of
> the gene pool. That'll ensure that the free fair market competition
> would reign over war when all lies and prejudices against those more
> successful are gone.
>
> Now that being said, I want to move all jobs that can be done online to
> Asia, especially, copy writers. Take advantage of the value difference
> and leverage like hell is how we all make money in any system. Who's
> with me?
>
> Free market is all merciful and all compassionate. At the end, even
> those that oppose free market will benefits from free trades.
>