[continued from previous message]   
      
   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.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)