:John Aitek

Angry Harry, a sexist, says the following: “If anything, the chances are not so much that women will take over the planet and exterminate the men, but that men will start to ‘farm’ women for their very own purposes - just like they currently do with cows.”

Does the political philosophy of libertarianism support the farming of women? By “farm” if we mean that women will be put into the sex market against their will, then that goes against libertarianism since the woman doesn’t get a choice.

However, if we mean that women will be selectively mated with males to generate offspring who will be good prostitutes and if all parties consent and give informed consent, then this is allowable under libertarian ethics.

The beauty of the libertarian system is that there will be no battle of the sexes. In a libertarian system, a fully efficient sex market will best allocate sexual services to consumers. More competition in the sex market will hopefully see prostitute wage reductions, which are at the moment quite high and there are massive differences in prostitute wages across countries, which can be eradicated with the global trading and arbitrage of prostitutes.

At the moment in Europe and America there is a an excess supply of females since males tend to die off because of lifestyle and there is no bias at birth between males and females. However, in China and India there is a massive scarcity of females, especially in China where families prefer male children. It is estimated that there will be 200 million more males than females in China.

This phenomenon brings with it an opportunity for sex traders to buy females in Europe and then sell them in China for a profit. As more and more sex traders buy and sell females, the profits from arbitrage will reduce and we will see price equalization thus restoring equilibrium in the global sex market.

This is not sexist because we can trade men for female consumers. We can also trade men for gay male consumers. We can also trade animals if bestiality is allowed. Companies like BHP sell a diversified list of commodities to reduce risk. Likewise, sexual services firms can trade diversified commodities, trading not only females but also males and different types of animals. This can protect the business should there by a demand shock e.g. if the demand for gay male sex decreases then firms can focus on giving consumers cheap goat sex.

Libertarianism gives individuals the right and freedom to property and to trade property. It supports capitalism, believing that trade is very effective at spreading prosperity. We can see the effectiveness of capitalism versus communism in South Korea versus North Korea.

Of course, free trade does not exist everywhere and for everything. For example, the agricultural markets in many developed countries are heavily protected by governments. The international prostitution market is also inefficient because of high costs of labor mobility. Capital flows freely among many capitalist countries but capital (both financial and physical) is not the only production input. The other being labor. For example, I would love to ship some Russian women here. Because Russian women have lower reservation wages than most Western women, I can derive more consumer surplus from sexual intercourse with a Russian woman. However, as you may know, importing a Russian woman is not easy. Departments of Immigration and other statist structures simply hamper free trade. Even though Russian international crime networks are trading prostitutes, these exchanges are coercive. They involve the trafficking of women and even children against their will. For more on this issue of organized crime in Russia I recommend you listen to the Melbourne University up-close podcast Post-Soviet Crime and Its Impact Abroad. What I want is a fully voluntary and non-coercive global free-market system for the trade of sexual services. These sexual services can have different terms of maturity, with short-term females being used for casual sex and long-term females being used for marriage. Many Chinese may value sexual services with long terms till maturity, or a permanent relationship, in which the female acts like a perpetuity. With a marriage-for-life the Chinese customer can calculate the net present value of all future streams of sexual acts before committing himself (or herself if she is a lesbian).

If an international prostitution and marriage market is fully functional, this will easily solve Amartya Sen’s missing women problem.

The 100 million missing women problem is a serious problem, and global capitalist free-trade is the solution. I cannot think of any other system that can solve this problem.

No Comments

An EconTalk podcast featuring GMU economist Russ Roberts about The Economics of Religion illustrates that religion in America is much more efficient at giving consumer what they want. The reason why this is the case is because, in America, citizens are given freedom to believe what they want, whereas in many other countries, religion is standardized and forced onto the citizens by the state. State control of religion tends to lead to stagnation in the market for religion.

If a religious organization works for profit then this gives workers in the religious services sector an incentive to innovate and compete, which leads not to stagnation and decline but to more vigor in the religious market, which allows more consumers to be satisfied. Turning religion into economic exchange will also boost the economy by boosting trade. The desire by religious companies to sell religious goods to consumers will increase employment by hiring people to write books, to print books, make memorabilia, etc.

Many Christian denominations in America charge their followers because they believe the Bible itself orders Christians to give 10 per cent of their income to God, that is, to give 10 per cent of their income to the church. This is called tithing.

Tithing is especially important among Mormons. Just about every Mormon tithes, and this disciplined tithing has made the Mormon church one of the largest religious organizations today.

Why then are there protests in Australia against Scientology? Scientology takes money from its followers but in return the religion provides services. Whether or not these services work or whether the stories are true or not is irrelevant. Many may laugh at Scientology stories about aliens but the reality is that all religions contain elements of superstition and wacky stories. If a religion did not contain any aspect of superstition then by definition it is not religious.

If we ban Scientology because its alien stories are not proven by scientific analysis, then if we apply scientific naturalism to all other religions we must ban all religions, including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. All over the world about 75 per cent of people are religious.

No Comments

There is a piece today in The Age talking about whether the international hair trade is fair.

Firstly, let me say that I hate getting my hair cut. I do it only because I have to. I have to cut my hair because when it get too long it gets into my eyes. Having hair strands stabbing at surface of your eye is not pleasant.

It surprises me therefore that some people are willing to pay money not to remove hair from their head but to have hair put on them! Most people pay barbers to remove hair. Hair is like rubbish and the barber is like a rubbish collection. A person who wants hair extentions then is like a person who wants to pay money for rubbish. As they say, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

What troubles me is that The Age is going on about how hair in Australia doesn’t actually come from Europe an that most of it comes from, wait for it, Asia! Wow! How horrible! But wait, what is so horrible about that? Hair is hair. Why does it matter where it comes from? The article then goes on about how they are worried that people in Asian countries, especially in India, China, and Russia, are being exploited. Some children as young as 12 give their hair.

This I don’t think is a major problem. When I was 12 my parents made me go to the barber to get my hair cut. Most parents would do this because long hair is hard and costly to maintain (e.g. you have to use more shampoo). It is actually more economical to cut your hair when it grow to a certain length. So if children are going to have their hair cut anyway, why not sell it and make some money from it? Why not? This money can be used to buy education and health products for the kids.

No Comments

Currently for a heterosexual couple to get married they receive permission from the state. Libertarianism being anti-state means the government should stick its nose into issues of major importance, such as property rights. Marriage is no such thing. It is decorative and wasteful on public finances to fund celebrants, write papers, etc. If government gets involved in marriage, we stand on a slippery slope that justifies government doing anything.

I recommend the full deregulation of the marriage market and the full privatization of firms that supply marriage contracts.

Under this system couples or polygamists can apply for marriage contracts from private institutions. This will lead to innovation in the marriage market, forcing firms to constantly reinvent new marriages, from gay marriage, to polygamist marriages, and even to marriage between different species. This innovation will bring out more varied consumption patterns and a boosting of GDP.

No Comments

I have been reading about street children in Romania. Sadly, many street children in Romania are sexually abused. Many do it to earn money. Many sex tourists come from Western European countries to have sex with these children. The consensus is that sex between children and adult harms children.

I have an idea on how money can be transferred from pedophiles to children without the children being harmed. Children can give sexual services that can excite pedophiles but don’t harm anyone. For example, if I take a picture of a child’s genitals, this won’t harm the child. I have not touched the child, I have not harmed the child. I have simply taken a picture of a child while he or she is naked and then I crop off everything but the child’s genitals. Then I sell this photograph to a pedophile and use the profits to feed, clothe, and educate the child. I could even take a 10% cut, giving the child 90% of the money.

Taking pictures of the child’s genitals is not the only harmless thing I can do. I can collect bodily fluids from the child and sell them to pedophiles. E.g. I can collect urine from the child and sell them to pedophiles. I can collect feces, used underwear, saliva, and so forth. By selling children’s saliva to pedophiles the pedophile can simulate the act of kissing a child.

These ideas I think can be used to harness the desires of pedophiles to help poor children all around the world.

No Comments

I have been reading the LDP’s proposed policy on immigration. The benefits to immigration are obvious. Immigrants work, spend, invest, and improve the economy. The LDP agrees with this but say the following: “Given Australia’s extensive welfare system it is necessary to place limits on immigration.” While in the ideal capitalists economy, there would be no welfare, Australia and other countries do have welfare systems, and immigrants who take welfare may result in increased taxes.

A solution to this problem is to simply not allow migrants to go on welfare. Then over time we gradually pull back welfare for domestic citizens as well. Of course, most people would object to this. No welfare they imagine will mean children will die on our streets. This ignores the charity of private individuals.

Of course, if we want to maintain the welfare state then we will need some surge protector to stop too many immigrants from coming in. I am not happy with politicians simply setting an arbitrary number. What I recommend is the auctioning and subsequence trading in a secondary market of migrant passes.

The government will auction off 500,000 migrant passes every year. One migrant pass allows one migrant to enter Australia. The government auctions the passes off to the highest bidder on the international market.

Some people in Australia don’t like immigrants. Maybe they don’t like foreigners or they don’t like large crowds. Those Australians who don’t like migrants can simply buy a migrant pass and then store it away, thereby preventing an immigrant from coming to Australia. Those people who want immigration, e.g. businesses who want more labor, can subsidize migrant passes by buying the migrant passes from the government and then selling them for a lower price to migrants, accepting the loss because they want higher migration.

The money raised from the auctioning of these migrant passes should be used to fund infrastructure.

Of course, if Australia were undergoing an infrastructure crisis due to population growth, why in the world is the Liberal Party subsidizing baby production with its Baby Bonus policy?

Selling 500,000 passes per year is arbitrary but it doesn’t matter because the buying and selling of passes will make the units irrelevant.

No Comments

The Australian media has attacked the LDP (Australia’s libertarian party) because of its policy of legalizing incest. The LDP claims incest is a victimless crime.

The reason why capitalists believe incest should be legalized is the same reason why free trade should be legalized. Evident in the failure of communism, politicians have no idea how to run your life. Under a capitalist system, you as an individual choose what car to buy, what stocks to buy, or whom you have sex with. If a man decides through his own contemplation that buying a Ford is his choice, then capitalists believe in the consumer given the right to choose rather than having the government force a car brand on the people. Similarly, if a father decides through his own contemplation that having sex with his daughter is his choice, then capitalists believe in the consumer given the right to choose.

Of course, we are assuming the daughter is mature and old enough to consent to sexual intercourse.

When I said that the “consumer” should be given the right to choose, some people might argue that sexual intervourse is not a “business” agreement. Well, what is business? Business is trade. Trade is the exchange of goods or services between two trading entities. Sexual intercourse then is trade or business because it involves the exchange of sexual services between two people. Prostitution is trade because it involves an exchange of money for sexual services. But incestual sex between mother and son is also a business trade because it involves the mutual bilateral exchange of sexual service.

An argument can be made that incest can have a negative externality on any babies born because inbreeding among family members can increase the probability that heritable diseases may be expressed. The Royal Family’s decision to inbreed to keep the wealth inside the family led to subsequent births of weak children.

Because of this health problem that comes about from inbreeding, I recomment the LDP legalize incest but in order to neutralize any threat of negative externality the LDP should enforce the use of condoms if the father-daughter, father-son, mother-son, etc engage in intercourse that involves penile-vaginal penetration and possibly encourage sex that minimizes the risk of pregnancy, such as oral sex, anal sex, urine sex, and so forth.

The LDP is right. Incest is a victimless crime. If a father and son who are both over 18 decide to have sex then both of them are happy and no one else is worse off. What these two people (or three or more if they decide to engage in group sex) do is their own private business.

No Comments

Jeffrey Sachs believes the reason why Africans are so poor is because of their unfortunate climate. The country is hot, and this causes problems with malaria, etc. There are also very few coastlines compared to land area, which means most Africans cannot trade with the outside world via ships.

Others believe the problem lies in the lack of institutions, like courts, police, etc. The governments presently in Africa are accused of corruption.

Either way, the libertarian/capitalist ideology provides a solution to the problem. The problem is that the African people are living in an area that is not good. If immigration were completely free then the African people can move to better climates where there may be better institutions, e.g. to Europe or to Asia via land or to America via sea. The decrease in the number of people in Africa will lower land prices. Industries will then move into Africa to exploit not only natural resources but also cheap land prices. Africa then will become a new industrial continent, specializing in that area in which it has a comparative advantage, i.e. producing materials.

The essence of libertarianism or capitalism is that there is freedom for economic inputs like labor or capital to move to where it is most productive. Freedom of immigration then is not only an essential Human Right but an important prerequisite for economic efficiency.

No Comments

I want to look at a piece titled Liberating Libertarianism from the Lunatics by Rich Powers. He says the following:

I…had the pleasure of hearing a Libertarian Party speaker earlier this year. Before he even arrived, the room was abuzz about this chap. You see, he is known the county over for speaking to high school seniors and using bestiality - yes bestiality - to illustrate libertarianism. “You can have sex with a horse and, so long as you don’t infringe on anyone’s rights, you can go ahead and do it.” Never mind that animals can’t give consent, but the fact is that’s the worst possible way to spread your ideology…period. Instantly, you lose prospective voters who might otherwise agree with you.

Libertarianism can be summed up in the following statement: “You are free to do whatever you want so long as you don’t reduce other people’s freedom to do whatever they want.”

Here is an argument that some (maybe most) libertarians use to promote bestiality. According to them, libertarianism holds that pursuit of happiness is moral. Sex in pursuit of happiness is selfish and also moral. Sex between humans and non-human animals is also moral under libertarianism.

Sex between humans and non-human animals or any trans-species intercourse has the benefit of zero risk of pregnancy, meaning there is no worries about having to rush to the abortion clinic the day after.

Some people criticize bestiality, saying that non-human animals cannot consent to sex and therefore sex with animals goes against their freedom. This may be true, but if we uphold this idea then killing animals for food would be immoral as well and we should all be vegetarians. When humans kill animals for food the animals certainly don’t consent to being killed. Killing an animals is done at the expense of the animal’s will and for the pleasure of meat-eating humans.

When you kill an animal for food, the animal almost certain doesn’t consent to being killed because by the laws of evolution all animals try to live and not die.

Animals gain pleasure from sex because sex as a behavior is favored for in human evolution. Most animals gain pleasure from sex although many may not enjoy it if they do not consent.

The bottom line is that when an animal is killed there is almost a zero percent probability that the animal consented to being killed. However, when an animal is the victim of sexual intercourse, there is a positive probability that it consents and enjoys the sex.

Therefore, based on expected probabilities alone, raping an animal is likely to do more to increase the animal’s welfare than killing it for food.

If pleasure if the basis of morality (e.g. if we adopted a utilitarian system of morality) then if killing animals is moral then it follows that raping animals is also equally moral if not more moral because the animal victim of rape is more likely to enjoy being raped than being killed.

Many people say that non-human animals, e.g. goats, cannot consent to sex. But I think they can. Even though goats and human are part of different species, the theory of evolution states we are all related. We can all understand each other. Many owners of pets can understand if their dogs or cats are happy, sad, or angry. If you started having sex with a goat, it is fairly easy to tell whether the goat is happy or sad. If you suspect the goat is sad and doesn’t want to have sex, you could stop and try again another time. Trying to respect the animal’s choice then increases the probability that the goat will enjoy the sex, which makes bestiality even more moral than killing for food.

Legalizing bestiality can also have significant economic benefits. At the moment because bestiality is illegal, there is a missing market. Those humans who want to have sex with non-human animals cannot do so, and so there is a deadweight loss from government intervention since a potential trade between animal supplier and consumers who want sex is not realized. 

The demand from consumers who want animal sex will result in growth in a new industry sector that caters to supplying animals ready for sex. These companies that specialize in, say, human-goat sex will hire workers, pay taxes, satisfy consumer demand, and contribute to GDP growth.

No Comments

The guys at Bloomberg are claiming that the surplus males in India and China will have terrible effects on the economy. Normally there are more females than males because men tend to die off. This is what we see in most countries like America and Australia. However, in India and China, for whatever cultural reasons, parents prefer males over females, and so it is estimated that in China alone there soon may be 20 million men who won’t be able to find a wife.

This all assumes that women will only have one husband, which may be a reasonable assumption. The article also assumes that these Chinese men who are likely to be very rich in the future, won’t be able to find wifes overseas. China, after all, is right next to Russia, where many mail-order brides are. Chinese men could find wifes or girlfriends from Japan, Thailand, Australia, or anywhere.

Some might argue that Chinese men will not want non-Chinese women because of cultural differences. But all individuals have different ways of behavior and unless you marry your sister your girlfriend or wife is not going to be very similar to you. But there’s nothing wrong with differences. In fact, most people like differences. Nobody wants to marry their sister (almost nobody).

If there is a scarcity of females then the price of females will go up to reflect this scarcity. If we are to apply libertarian policies to address this issue, we should simply allow the marriage market to freely operate and to make it more dynamic and competitive the Chinese government should open its borders and allow for free immigration and emigration, which will correct any excess supply or excess demand of women around the world. Females will move from one country to another to arbitrage their sexual and non-sexual services.

The Bloomberg article claims that sexual frustration from Chinese males will harm the economy. I disagree. If anything, I believe it will improve the economy. Why? Most people (most men at least) work and make money only for the sake of sex. Men make money so they can invest in status symbols like luxury cars or imported watches. With status symbols the men signal to females their reproductive fitness. Suppose females are scarce. This scarcity means they will demand a higher price. Instead of each Chinese female demanding her man drive a Ford, she may want a man who drives a Mercedes. This increases competition among men, which means more work, which means more economic growth.

No Comments