Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 7 Dec 2014 in A Proposal That Will End Illegal Immigration by Richard Kelsey, Reality said:

    sbh says

    Try to resist going down the rabbithole with an anarchist. Anything that destroys structure is virtuous to one....until he pulls out of his ass/hat a rabbit that posits structure derived from a "natural" law on which no one agrees. Then you come to realize it's a natural waste of your time.

    Your alleged "structure" is nothing more than fascist social engineering pre-supposing everyone else as idiots at your disposal. Just like Prohibition brought European organized crime to America, outlawing guns leading to only criminal outlaws having guns in anti-gun urban centers, a prohibition against immigration would only lead to the same kind of perverse selection. Idiotic pursuit of "structure" would only lead to real chaos.

  • On 7 Dec 2014 in A Proposal That Will End Illegal Immigration by Richard Kelsey, Reality said:

    BayAreaObserver says

    Reality - if we get rid of laws banning/restricting immigration, care to explain how that will turn out? Based on your comments are you suggesting we just toss out the laws and open the borders and let the chips fall where they may? Maybe we can increase the speed at which the U.S. and other 1st and 2nd world countries achieve 3rd world status.

    The 1st and 2nd world countries in Western Europe and North America became relatively advanced compared to the rest of the world largely due to their free trade and free population movement in the 18th and 19th century. The 3rd world that fell behind were precisely the regions of the world where government paper requirement was rampant: Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire and Chinese Empire.

    Somehow I am missing how having more uneducated, potentially unemployable people moving into any developed country is mutually beneficial.

    Mutually beneficial as between the laborer and the employer, and between the renter and the housing service provider. It's just like the sale of alcohol is mutually beneficial between the bar tender and the customer. Some prohibitionists may argue that it is not beneficial to the rest of the society due to some people engaging in bad behavior when drunk. What the prohibitionists failed to account for is the even bigger picture: the social cost of prohibition is even more expensive and destructive to the rest of the society than alcohol itself. Likewise, the cost of enforcement against immigration is even more expensive to the rest of the society in terms of both financial cost and cost in liberty. A bureaucratic system set up to check everyone's "legal status" would not only be hugely expensive but would be a bureaucracy that would strive to exist and expand itself by looking for new "illegal" behavior to enforce against even after all the "illegals" were deported.

  • On 7 Dec 2014 in A Proposal That Will End Illegal Immigration by Richard Kelsey, Reality said:

    bob2356 says

    Reality says

    he problem with "illegal immigration" is having laws banning/restricting immigration. People have a natural right to move around.

    What is the basis for this "natural right"?

    Individual self-ownership. To ascribe individual human beings as owned by or attached to specific piece of land is essentially advocating serfdom if not slavery.

  • On 4 Dec 2014 in A Proposal That Will End Illegal Immigration by Richard Kelsey, Reality said:

    thunderlips11 says

    Reality says

    The unemployment problem has nothing to do with population problem but everything to do with tax/welfare/minimum-wage laws. The "native primitive" population is much smaller than Whites, but they are far more impacted by welfare and minimum-wage laws running up perverse incentives.

    This violates the law of supply and demand.

    Increasing the supply when demand is stagnant, declining, or simply being outstripped by supply = falling prices.

    Labor prices are no different than iron ore or cookies or pet rocks or cars.

    A person is not just labor supply, but also creates its own demand. In any case, a new person who is willing to supply more than he/she consumes is actually a good thing for the rest of the society. I'd rather prefer you to come to my house as my worker instead of ordering people here around to generate "demand." LOL.

  • On 4 Dec 2014 in A Proposal That Will End Illegal Immigration by Richard Kelsey, Reality said:

    BayAreaObserver says

    Finally, while all of them may apply for citizenship and should receive proper working papers to be here lawfully, not one of them should receive citizenship before any current pending applicant who is trying to enter this country legally.

    Since there will always be more applicants waiting in line, none of "them" will receive citizenship under this proposal.

    That’s an amnesty with which I can live. That will restore our laws,

    Makes about as much sense as proposing to have all who want an alcohol drink legally served before repealing the misguided constitutional ban on alcoholic drinks.

    The problem with "illegal immigration" is having laws banning/restricting immigration. People have a natural right to move around. The idea that somehow "we" collectively own public land is communistic. Criminal trespassing only applies to private lands. While it should be legal for private land owners to shoot anyone trespassing on his/her land, it's ridiculous to have tax-funded enforcers to institute "negative roads" and "negative bridges" getting in the way of people moving goods and moving themselves around in mutually beneficial interactions with other people.

  • On 4 Dec 2014 in A Proposal That Will End Illegal Immigration by Richard Kelsey, Reality said:

    thunderlips11 says

    bgamall4 says

    So, without immigration, every single woman must have 2.1 children to keep the population growing.

    The US birth rate among native born citizens is already slightly above replacement level, without immigrants. The world doesn't need more people, as we increasingly automate more and more jobs.

    The birth rate among native born citizens is heavily skewed towards the lazy bum welfare recipients. Without immigrants to dilute the "native primitive" density, many municipalities would have even worse violent crime and policing problems than we already have.

    The unemployment problem has nothing to do with population problem but everything to do with tax/welfare/minimum-wage laws. The "native primitive" population is much smaller than Whites, but they are far more impacted by welfare and minimum-wage laws running up perverse incentives, and have far higher unemployment rate.

  • On 4 Dec 2014 in A Proposal That Will End Illegal Immigration by Richard Kelsey, Reality said:

    Peter P says

    Perhaps it is time to abolish citizenship and start to regulate residency by means of a poll tax.

    In a global society, free movement of goods and people can only benefit the economy. Everyone ought to be able to choose any community, provided that he pays a fee or head-tax set by the local market.

    Exactly! A head-tax to replace "progressive" income tax would also induce the right kind of population mix among the native-born population.

  • On 4 Dec 2014 in As It Turns Out Deflation Is Good After All, Reality said:

    control point says

    bob2356 says

    This is all well and good if the interest rate genie can be held in the bottle forever. Good luck with that. You guys keep thinking those happy thoughts.

    Here is the thing....interest rates do not rise in a vacuum. Rising interest rates on treasuries implies rising inflation, which implies strong economic growth. As long as we dont further butcher tax revenues - added revenues will more than make up for the increase in debt service from rising rates.

    LOL. So you keep on having the happy dream just as Bob suggested. The idea that rising inflation means strong economic growth is quite false. It's similar to the Phillips Curve nonsense.

  • On 25 Nov 2014 in Robots/AI future, we need a full blown welfare state, Reality said:

    Heraclitusstudent says

    Reality says

    I just had a very unexpected outcome with a girl half my age recently. Life is a learning experience.

    Let me guess: she tied you to the bed and ran away with your wallet?

    LOL. I think the problem was that I did not whip out the bondage kit for extra entertainment. I'm not going to kiss and tell.

  • On 24 Nov 2014 in Robots/AI future, we need a full blown welfare state, Reality said:

    Rin says

    Reality says

    I just had a very unexpected outcome with a girl half my age recently. Life is a learning experience.

    Ok, let's just hope that she doesn't file false rape charges in the future. You know, the one where an aggressive older man, took advantage of an inexperienced youth.

    LOL. I think I erred on the side of being too non-aggressive and non-controlling, precisely because of the fear you mentioned. I can see why many young hotties fall for the real thugs with nothing to lose. It is a dilemma.

  • On 24 Nov 2014 in Sexism is Innate, Reality said:

    Indiana Jones says

    Female Surrogate to carry and have the baby: $60,000.00

    More like $25,000

    Live-In Nanny Salary per year : $60,000.00

    Can be done for $1000/mo stipend on top of room, board and car. Heck, can get sex too if the rate is raised to $2000/mo on top of room, board and car. Can probably rotate every 5 years: 20-25 year-old's only!

    60,000 X 19 (18 years of child rearing plus surrogacy) = $1,140,000.00

    I'd be willing to get married if divorce settlement were capped to $1.5mil, to be paid out over 19 years (just so that she doesn't blow through the lump sum in one year, and come back again for the remaining 18 years).

    The costs go up for more than one child, and if you want an educated Surrogate or Nanny.

    There are plenty "well-educated" young women who waste their best years on dead-end jobs and loser boyfriends, accidentally getting pregnant and condemning themselves and their children to generational poverty. A well established man taking one in to make babies would be doing her a favor, especially if he can provide her with the opportunity to get a proper career started after the children in her late 20's so she can have a continuous 35+year professional career and support herself without having to face the conflict between child vs. career.

  • On 24 Nov 2014 in Robots/AI future, we need a full blown welfare state, Reality said:

    Rin says

    Isn't that basically just adding another subroutine

    No. There are zillions of ways in real life the outcome is less than one wishes for, and it's not just whether getting sex or not, but often the after-math. I'm not jaded enough to think all outcomes can be anticipated ahead of time. I just had a very unexpected outcome with a girl half my age recently. Life is a learning experience.

  • On 24 Nov 2014 in Robots/AI future, we need a full blown welfare state, Reality said:

    New Renter says

    After a few generations of 'bots, humans will simply not be able to compete. Can you imagine a three or four way with Raquel Welch, Sophia Loren, and Joan Collins, all rolling around, covered in oil, playing submission/domination games, and inviting you in, as a player-referee?

    And with absolutely no chance of getting slapped with a paternity suit, no whining about making an honest women out of her, no STDs ever regardless of how raw it gets, no jeleousy (unless you're into that kind of thing), no blathering conversations that you don't want, no whining for presents, no headaches or other excuses, no expensive shopping trips. No drama at all.

    How is that substantively different from masturbating while watching porn?

    Part of the challenge in playing with real women is that, sometimes you do not win. How many times do you want to play tennis against a kid that guarantees your own win?

  • On 24 Nov 2014 in Robots/AI future, we need a full blown welfare state, Reality said:

    Rin says

    No one likes to do real work. If they already screw around, why not just do it with a rich fellow than a poor one?

    Then why did you think robots displacing people from "real work" would be a problem? Since "no one likes to do real work" anyway. People will just figure out whatever different positions of screwing that the sexbots aren't programmed to do yet.

  • On 23 Nov 2014 in Sexism is Innate, Reality said:

    Indiana,

    I don't think raising a feminist daughter who is taught to behave like a man then have two entry-level careers in her life interrupted by child-births then spend the second half of her life bitching about why her erstwhile colleagues are her boss's bosses, then bring that frustration home to her husband eventually leading to a divorce and moving back to my house and living with a bunch of cats after I pass away . . . is really a winning parenting strategy.

    I want to raise a feminine daughter, who will find her man and get married and have kids right after 4yr college (either woman's college or commute from my house while attending college so I can keep a tab on her comings and goings during the 4yr college); then have a continuous career of 35 years of her own, if she and her husband choose, after the kids are in school, so she can have a successful career and a happy family life.

  • On 23 Nov 2014 in Sexism is Innate, Reality said:

    Indiana,

    The solution to get the boys to give up their violent video games is not via banning games, but via girls getting pussy tingles from effeminate men. Now how many girls are doing that? LOL. Girls want the kind of men that other girls want . . . whether it is a big wallet or decorative 6-packs or a long pretty tail like the peacock. Girls always get want they want, in the end, and get it hard.

    Likewise, the feminine women is the result of men choosing mates: men with protective instincts and desire to raise their own offsprings instead of someone else's. There are other species where the male has lost those choices, such as the Hyena, where the female is dominant and has bigger clits than the males' dicks. Humans just happened to be different from hyenas.

  • On 23 Nov 2014 in Sexism is Innate, Reality said:

    sbh says

    Patrick says

    The demand has to be there to begin with.

    Patrick is NOT an Austrian!

    Actually Patrick is quite Austrian: Value is Subjective. This is a tenet of economics that was discovered by the Austrians but embraced by almost all economists nowadays.

    Kids by definition do not create Qualified Demand by themselves, because they do not have money. They only express a Want driven by their own subjective preferences.

  • On 23 Nov 2014 in The myth of Winston Churchill, Reality said:

    Without the coastal chain of RADAR early warning system detecting incoming Luftwaffe attack packs before they even cross the Channel, Dowding would have no way of knowing where to send the fighter interception. BTW, it would be a mistake to characterizing Dowding ' s tactic as centralizing: he advocated putting fighters forward on dispersed fields in order to launch the quickest interception whereas some of his colleagues advocated pulling fighters back to centralized Midland fields in order to build up and deliver bigger punch but would be slower in response.

    It's also a mistake to think RAF was merely two weeks from collapsing. British were producing more fighters than Germans were throughout the fight, and RAF was losing less pilots than Luftwaffe was throughout the fight. The "near collapse" was a fiction made up for more dramatic story telling, and to justify Churchill ' s deliberate bombing of civilians. He wanted every excuse to bomb civilians because he wanted to whip up total war.

  • On 22 Nov 2014 in The myth of Winston Churchill, Reality said:

    HydroCabron says

    It's most likely that Hitler would not have invaded, but the Kentish Weald of SE England is difficult to defend, and Churchill would have been negligent to assume that Hitler was going to pass on an invasion.

    Invasion would not have been physically possible without Luftwaffe completely sweeping RAF from the sky and Royal Navy from the English Channel.

    In retrospect, Lord Halifax and Neville Chamberlain were geniuses for robbing Hitler the opportunity to start WWII in 1938, a year earlier than it actually took place in 1939. The British chain of RADAR stations were finished only early in 1940, just in time to ensure the survival of RAF Fighter Command under the Luftwaffe onslaught in the fall of that same year. Before WWII, all military strategists had thought "bombers can always get through" but the Luftwaffe bombers were chewed up by RAF fighters vectored by the chain RADAR early warning system.

    Meanwhile the soviets had a year to put T-34 into mass production, replacing the earlier BT-7's that were easily shot up by German tanks, saving Moscow in the winter of 1941.

    Churchill was only a blow-hard who destroyed the British Empire through excessive and costly wars: Turkey and Gallipoli in WWI, and horrendous wastefulness in WWII.

  • On 22 Nov 2014 in Liberals smarter, or more evolved ? Or both ?, Reality said:

    More likely a global new Dark Age. The Far East is not breeding fast enough either, with declining native-born populations in most highly developed parts of Japan, Korea and China.

  • On 22 Nov 2014 in Liberals smarter, or more evolved ? Or both ?, Reality said:

    Knowledge is lost very quickly when the knowledgeable class wed themselves to a set of ideologies that lead to genetic suicide, and they get displaced by people who breed but are not into knowledge. It would then take a long time for trade and knowledge acquisition to re-emerge as part of dominant culture.

  • On 22 Nov 2014 in Liberals smarter, or more evolved ? Or both ?, Reality said:

    Good question, Indigenous. It is important however to keep in mind what is the means vs. what is the end. Technology progress, religion, arts and music are all means to an end: eggs reproducing eggs. . . just like peacock eggs use a beautiful bird to reproduce eggs.

  • On 22 Nov 2014 in Top incomes soared as tax rates fell, Reality said:

    Goes to show the futility of raising tax rate for the top income tax bracket, which is close to 40% and kicks in just below 0.5Mil, whereas these guys making on average 265Mil are paying only 18%.

    It's pointless to raise top bracket income tax rate. The really rich can afford to buy tax lawyers, accountants, and even lawmakers, to give themselves exemptions. The higher the rate the more incentive for them to do just that.

  • On 22 Nov 2014 in Liberals smarter, or more evolved ? Or both ?, Reality said:

    indigenous says

    Reality says

    The result is Muslims replacing Europeans today just like Christians replaced secular Neoplatonists like Hypatia 1500+ years ago.

    Or Mexicans in the US?

    The political establishment seems to have come to the conclusion that having the Mexicans filling the demographic hole created by post-modern 2nd/3rd-wave feminism is preferable to having the hole filled by native primitives (LBJ's great grand kids) or imported/converted muslims multiplying themselves. At least the Mexicans are Christians. The upper class is shifting to the happily breeding Mormons.

  • On 21 Nov 2014 in Liberals smarter, or more evolved ? Or both ?, Reality said:

    "Common sense is little more than the set of prejudices that one has acquired before the age of 17" -- Albert Einstein

    What is right for one person, may well be wrong for another. Value is subjective.

    Women are by nature hypergamous. A wife has every incentive to suck resources from the Betabux husband while secretly getting genetic material from the Alphafux. It is the most advantageous strategy for her own genes if she is not caught or faces no consequences when caught. Allowing her to then divorce rape the husband in a no-fault divorce essentially condemning him to life-long slavery for someone who cheated on him and has produced an offspring for someone else vs. stoning her to death are just two opposite extreme societal responses to the same biological/evolutionary problem. Each extreme probably finds the other abominable.

    There is no right or wrong answer to the issue per se but only feedback loops: in a society that allows a woman to ride cock carousel while she is young then grudgingly marry to a Betabux husband just before she hits the wall, neither partner is excited about family life or children; whereas in the other society/group, women's reproductive capacity during their peak years is put to effective use. The result is Muslims replacing Europeans today just like Christians replaced secular Neoplatonists like Hypatia 1500+ years ago. The ending for Hypatia was not pretty and the fundamental reason was simply that people like her were out-bred for about 400 years after Christianity started teaching wives submitting to husbands while the rest of the Roman society embraced sexual revolution. Over 400 years, the latter group were displaced by Christians. The "Romans" disappeared because they committed genetic mass suicide.

    Evolution / statistical law of large numbers applies to biological organisms as well as to social memes. There is no "right" or "wrong" by design; only the feedback loop and statistical law of large numbers can be the ultimate judge; "fitness" and social "morals" (the basis for legal codes) are only rationalizations for that which proves to work.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 363 milliseconds to create.