Welfare Parasites Can Support More Children than Billionaires: Big pink elephants 1 - How Governments Plan to Pimp Out Your Daughters and Enslave Your Sons to Voters.

By Jim Thio

Tired of paying tax? “Ah but it’s for the children,” liberal says. “Yea why can’t their own parent support those children? Oh well, it’s not like they choose to be poor. Their parents can’t afford them. They are less fortunate. So we need to tax the rich to help them,” says most liberals further.

Is it really the case? Do the poor do not have choice? Surprisingly they are correct. What the liberal do not tell you is that the poor do not have choice because government overrides most of their choice. The conservative are even guiltier on this than the liberal.

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand,” says Milton Friedman. Well, government doesn’t control Sahara Desert.

Government controls our reproductive success.
Governments want to be the pimp tzar. That is, they are the pimp of all hoes.

Governments decide which consensual acts are legal. In doing so, governments, rather than women, decide which men get the girls.

With various laws, governments arrange that women often can only pick welfare parasites. Those, in turn, vote for bigger and bigger government. Other choices become highly impractical due to various laws.

Meanwhile, normal hard working people are viciously taxed. Hence, majestic welfare parasites can breed and breed without having to worry about the costs.

Hard working diligent people are meanwhile being exterminated. In many countries, doctors are forced to be slaves in public hospitals with salary way lower than the market price.

In many places, women are even forced to get married. Many kind of consensual sexual relationship outside governments’ approval is illegal. Only those approved by those in power get laid.

Any criticisms against violation of this freedom are silenced under irrelevant pretexts, such as the idea that those giving hot women choices are misogynists.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Jim Thio
• Release date: Mar 28, 2013

Jim Thio

Math lover

Book preview

Foreword

Governments want to be the pimp tzar. That is, they want to be the pimp of all hoes.

Governments decide which consensual acts are legal. In doing so, governments, rather than women, decide which men get the girls.

With various laws, governments arrange that women can only pick welfare parasites. Those, in turn, vote for bigger and bigger government.

Meanwhile, normal hard working people are viciously taxed. Hence, majestic welfare parasites can breed and breed without having to worry about the costs.

Hard working diligent people are meanwhile being exterminated. Doctors are forced to be slaves in public hospitals with salary way lower than the market price.

In many places, women are even forced to get married. Many kind of consensual sexual relationship outside governments’ approval is illegal. Only those approved by those in power get laid.

Any criticisms against violation of this freedom are silenced under irrelevant pretexts, such as the idea that those giving hot women choices are misogynists.

The Truth, Nothing but the Truths, so help me Guys, and Girls

I asked a lot of questions in my life. Every time things don’t fit in the normal pattern, I tend to ask questions. Yes rules have exceptions. Good scientific theories have almost no exception. If some theory, again and again, predict false conclusions, something is wrong.

Usually, people would start blaming the test subjects. People are good you know. We don’t need meritocracy. The people are wise; they’ll pick benevolent leaders. Then those leaders steal tons of money from public treasury. The leaders start robbing individual freedom.

Then what? Ups. We were wrong. Machiavelli was right. Humans are selfish jerks. Is that what people would say? No…

They would say that the corrupt officials are the one that’s wrong. But people keep picking those types of people again and again.

Things barely fit normal pattern. Drugs are illegal because they are dangerous. Yet, Wikipedia says that ecstasy and ganja is saver than cigarette. Well, what? Would people think they’re being fucked?

No. Most would either still be convinced that ganja is dangerous. The rest would think its honest misunderstanding. Most politicians do not know that ganja is safe. We need to educate them, says a smart high IQ female politician to me. Then there is this very vague understanding of what dangerous mean. Some would say that ganja is a gateway drug. So rather than denying that the drug itself is not dangerous, they simply come up with some remote dangerous acts that is somewhat linked to what they want to prohibit.

Oh well…

So I started asking questions. I questionned a lot.

Most of my questions are closed. I am banned for questioning from various question sites. Some says I am not being nice. Some says I didn’t frame the question correctly. Some explanations are even more bizarre.

Nobody can know what’s on people mind. You can’t claim that people have a certain motives. That’s not verifiable, most sceptic moderator in sceptic.stackexchange.com told me.

I see. Say, you walked down the street. Then, somebody stabbed you and picks your wallet and latter get caught by cops. Then his defense attorney said that he actually wanted to help performing free appendix surgery for you. If you were a jury, would you believe that?

Maybe what’s on one guys’ head is tricky. What about what’s on people head on average? Is that so unobvious too? In how many cases, out of millions of robbery, the robbers actually want to operate appendixes?

Yet, most political reasoning is as bizarre as that robbers’ defense. Bigots would rob our freedom, and latter claim that they mean well to us somehow. Oh yes, they mean well, of course, to them.

I wrote a book Banned by Skeptic. Meanwhile, there are tons of questions I still want to ask. I didn’t bother asking them anymore. People just get mad. Maybe they’re right. Maybe I asked a bad question. Maybe it’s grammar issue.

So I got a favor to ask you. If you are a curious person like me, please ask these questions in various blogs and forums.

The most important ones, where I am already banned are:

http://Quora.com

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/

These are the questions:

If women prefer the rich how can there be many kids with poor dad? (Possible serious answer would look at the possibility that women may not prefer the rich at all. Another possible answer would look at the possibility whether women’s preference for the rich exceed their preference for exclusivity. Both are scientifically false. However, that would be a start. I seriously doubt any would bother answering that far.)

If government stops recognizing marriage, how would government decide which lewd acts should be taxed, prohibited, or get tax break, especially when consideration is involved. (Prostitution is defined as sex in exchange for money or other consideration. Many claims that marriage is simply a form of prostitution. In that case, besides governments’ definition of marriage, are there any other telltale differences)?

What is the cross elasticity of marriage and prostitution (for both man and women. Positive cross elasticity suggest similarity)?

Say a woman wants to be a single mom as long as she got $2k per child month. Say most males believe that knocking her up worth $2k/per child month. It’s her market value. Can that woman choose a billionaire (No. Child support amount cannot be negotiated before conception)?

Say you despise marriage. However, you want to make certain financial commitment to girls you are having sex with. How would you do so (sugar babies?)?

If women are indeed forced, kidnapped, tricked or imprisoned in women trafficking, we already have laws against rape, kidnaping, fraud, and slavery. So why do we need more laws against women trafficking (to protect women against purely consensual offers that does not involve rape, kidnapping, fraud,