Western civilization has been in decline for at least 150 years

Western civilization has been in decline for at least 150 years. The western world is built on individual freedom – the freedom for the individual to choose his own success or failure. The two systems that have most facilitated these individual freedoms have been capitalism and Christianity. These systems and, through that, the individual freedoms, have been eroded over time.

Capitalism is the ability to profit from the excess in labor. This depends on division of labor, so that the producer is motivated to over-produce so that he may trade for other stuff he wants. It is unselfish in that a producer is producing for more than himself. It is selfish in that the producer will almost necessarily ask for the largest amount of compensation for that excess. Capitalism is the ability to sell your neighbor what he needs for profit.

In a capitalist society, the individual can choose how much he wants to produce. A man can be a broke writer or a wealthy banker. This depends on the individual’s skillset, profession, and how the market values the output of that work.  He can live a life of stoic poverty, un-stoic poverty, or wealth and abundance of things. It depends on how much the individual produces.

Christianity tells us to treat others how we want to be treated – to be nice to people. There’s more to it – there are more specific virtues to follow and specific examples (Jesus) to follow, but for the most part Christianity is about treating others with respect while pursuing an individual’s mission. That mission can be about anything (that doesn’t negatively impact the individual or others).

Christianity is freeing because the mission of the individual is up to the individual. The individual’s mission isn’t dictated by a government but is chosen by the individual. In addition, Christianity recommends virtue, which is a way of being free from want and societal expectations – like status, simple pleasure, and prescripted employment paths.

Capitalism is declining for multiple reasons. One is the rise in the popularity of socialism in developed nations. Natural and unnatural influences (examples below) on the capitalist markets have created divisions in economic status. When these divisions appear unjust, the groups that feel slighted often blame the capitalistic system for the unjust outcomes.

Another reason for the decline is the inflationary impact of policy that has debased the global currencies. Monetary policy, handled in almost all cases by a central government, can be used to manipulate the price of goods in the market, including the currency. Monetary policy often serves to give an appearance of helping the lower classes while really only benefiting the banks and governing bodies. Whether inflationary or deflationary, monetary policy moves more value into the hands closest to the policy creation (banks, governments). This negative impact on lower classes pushes even more people towards socialism.

There’s also an impact of division of labor that extends beyond mere exchange of goods. Unlike external (to the free market) policy, advertising is a natural evolution of capitalism. That doesn’t mean it’s good. It’s good for profits. But it’s not good for people. Advertising targets people’s insecurities and makes them want more. When people want more, they need to work more which means they contribute more to the systems that create insecurities and inequalities. Markets are fueled by wants. Companies create wants. Wants keep the individual from experiencing the present.

Christianity on decline as religion becomes less popular. Religion is way down in the Western world. The increase in popularity of science has had a lot to do with this. STEM is where the jobs are, so STEM is where the education is. STEM has a public appearance of being opposed to Christianity, which is unfortunate and inefficient (another essay).

In addition to science in education, church scandals – especially in the Catholic Church, have put a negative light on Christianity. There have been tons of media coverage of the pedophilia that occurs in the Catholic Church. It’s not bad that there’s coverage, but this scandal does shape public perception through the negative press. There is very little positive in the church news.

Last, the glorification of vice is a major reason for the decline in Christianity and the decline in personal freedoms. With the decline in virtue, more people look to the outside world to bring satisfaction. Although external reward cannot bring eternal internal satisfaction, businesses are quick to exploit this search with the promise of fulfillment. New cars are promised to fill a void in status. Alcohol promises the reduced inhibition and the social grace that will come with faded nerves.

This is different from the rest of the world because the whole world doesn’t allow everyone to be free. The eastern world is full of socialist states or countries that enforce cultural rules. Others are tribal and each tribe has their own rules to follow. These strict rules suppress the meaning of freedom for individuals, let alone the positive ends that can be realized by allowing those freedoms.

These freedoms have been in decline for a long time. As Logan Allen, author of the unfinished theses, says, at least 150 years. This fall has been part political, part economical, and part the morality and values of the individuals.

Politically, the West is far less conservative than it was 150 years ago. Republicans in 2019 are going to battle over abortion being allowed until childbirth, rather than going to battle over women receiving a right to vote. Each loss for conservatives because it meant that there were more people who would be more likely to side with the collective instead of the individual.

Over the long run of history, conservatives have never one a single battle. After the women received the right to vote, gays have been allowed into churches to marry, and taxes have grown to cover – not only services that don’t benefit every individual but also, services that benefit the collective rather than the individual. At least, in theory it benefits the collective over the individual.

Socialist dogma since the beginning of time has praised the collective over the individual. But these are the dogmas the eastern world had to overcome through war and suffering. They had to learn hard lessons that cost millions of lives that it is not beneficial to value the collective over the individual.

Western civilization has been in decline for at least 150 years. Western civilization is based on the individual freedoms promised by capitalism and Christianity, which are both declining. Christianity is on the decline due to the war with the science community, scandal, and the glorification of vice. Capitalism is on the decline because of the socialization of the population due to wants instilled by free market results and politics.

Jackson Pollock was a mediocre drunk who was funded by the CIA

Jackson Pollock was a mediocre drunk who was funded by the CIA. I actually laughed when I saw this prompt, but it’s not untrue. This prompt didn’t fit the mold for the other economic and sociological thoughts that Logan Allen produced prior. Until I got into it.

During the Cold War, Stalin put an end to the individual identity. People weren’t allowed to follow their passions or skills in a socialist nation. They worked toward the collective good, and were assigned work in a Soviet-owned facility. That included the art scene. Stalin only allowed socialist realism to be created. These had to capture the struggle of the working man or the Soviet nation in times of war against the oppression of the west and elites. No other paintings were allowed.

Some great paintings were made in socialist realism. However, that’s not the spirit of art. Art is great for its ability come from anyone, and be about anything. Art is the manifestation of the wants and desires of the author. And the skill of the author. The soviets had great painters. Those that weren’t were either not allowed to paint or sent off to gulags if they did a poor job. But they didn’t allow genuine art to manifest out of the desires of the authors. They manufactured art. Much like music in 2018, but that’s for another essay.

Jackson Pollock was a famous drip painter at the time, and remains an iconic artist. His art has been in recent Blockbuster movies such as Big Lebowski and Ex-Machina. In Ex-Machina, Pollock was praised for his ability to paint with an unburdened mind – one completely free. In Lebowski, he is praised for his ability to make paintings just “come” into being. These are two things the Soviets didn’t want – freedom and a creative spirit – the entrepreneur.

These freedoms despised by the Soviets – entrepreneurial spirit and creativity, are natural feelings that humans feel. Some people are drawn towards entrepreneurship. Others to artistic craft. But in a socialist state these natural desires must be suppressed because one person cannot be “better” than others. Creating is a way to set someone apart from others through profit and the status that comes with creating something that is valued. This cannot happen in a socialist state where no one is allowed to be better than others.

The CIA had access to Pollock through the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in New York at the time. They funded the museums and galleries that would display artists that specialize in abstract expressionism. Pollock received his fame and money through these channels.

The CIA chose to fund Pollock (and other abstract expressionists) because he was a symbol for the freedom Americans had over the socialist Soviets. His art was a protest against everything the Soviets stood for – individual freedom, individual wants, and skill that was put to use for his wants – not the collective. The fact that people were willing to pay for Pollock paintings meant that value is in the eye of the consumer. Even if that value was inflated by CIA propaganda, that doesn’t take away from the fact that people spend millions on Pollock paintings.

The CIA also chose Pollock because his art was simple. Drip art didn’t require the specialized skill or the threat of being sent to death camps that was required of the Soviet realism. When someone looks at a Pollock, they think, I can do that. That’s what the CIA wanted.

Jackson Pollock was a mediocre drunk who was funded by the CIA. His style of art did not require any unique talent. The CIA funded him and boosted him to fame for this reason – they wanted to show the Soviets and Americans that the United States stands for the ability to choose our path. We don’t need to be great to try something. We can be creative. Others can’t.

Software engineering, writing, and producing media are the most valuable skills in the world

Software engineering, writing, and producing media are the most valuable skills in the world. These are the skills that will benefit society in this age of technology. These are the skills men must learn if they are going to be valued in the sexual market for their accomplishments in the economy.

 

Software engineering is important because it is how things are built these days. The days of innovating with brick and mortar and physical architecture are behind us. It isn’t nearly as shareable, scalable, or receptive to change as software.

While these present opportunities for software engineers, these also present challenges to software engineers. The engineers must be able to manage at scale while being receptive to change. The two of these can be contradictory. It takes hardware investment to scale hardware. There must be servers that maintain the speed and quality of software. Also, for any organization going through changes, this can be difficult if they are constantly needing to change systems or work precedes.

To add value to a business in 2018, you must have technical abilities with software. Everything is digital these days, and every industry is a software industry. Healthcare, banking, oil and gas – these are all niche industries and also software industries. Companies operating in these spaces have become data companies so that they can make sense of their company data and make better decisions to beat the current competitions. They have a further need to become data companies to shut out potential new competitors. Data giants such as Google and Microsoft are now threats to industries that have gotten by for decades or centuries because of their niche knowledge. Now the data giants are the ones with immense control and resources.

Writing is important because it is the articulation of ideas. Writing will always be important. Even in the days of Instagram and Snapchat and YouTube, writing remains a superior method of communication and articulation. Behind every great video is a great script. Behind every piece of technology is an idea.

Writing is how we articulate and share ideas. We’ve been sharing writing since stone engravings thousands of years before Christ. Then there were books and then the internet and now we share ideas in 280-character tweets. We will continue to document our ideas – whether technical ideas relating to software engineering or philosophical.

Producing media is important for both entertainment and for distilling ideas. As gatekeepers are removed from radio through podcasts, TV through YouTube, and newspapers through social media, everyone has the opportunity to be a media producer.

The removal of gatekeepers means that more producers will have access to more consumers. There is more opportunity for niche entertainment when there aren’t gatekeepers controlling quality or content. If there are 50 people on the planet willing to pay to hear you speak or sing, you’re not going to have a show on Comedy Central. But, if you could reach those people, you could make some money – maybe enough to eat.

Software engineering is among the most valuable skills in the world because businesses are going technical. If you want to add value to businesses, you must be technical. Writing, because articulation of thought and ideas is needed to make sense of new technology, which is the driving force of economic market value. Producing media is important because entertainment will never cease to exist in humans. Creating content will be more important as those software engineers do away with media gatekeepers. This change will be documented by the writers.

Accelerationism is the primary force driving change in the world today

Accelerationism is the primary force driving change in the world. Never before has change happened as fast as it is currently happening, and that will continue to be the case.

Accelerationism is the change in state. To accelerate is to change velocity. The world is changing its velocity constantly these days. This is made possible by the more advanced, digital technology that emerged in the last couple decades, and manifests in every aspect of our lives.

New technology allows accelerationism. Every new technology ever invented has made other, new technology available – both directly and indirectly. New technology directly enables new technology because tools can be added to existing tools and improved upon. For example, the assembly line was created and then robotics were attached to assembly lines.

More recently, Salesforce created its development platform and now there are thousands of applications on the Salesforce network, some for purchase, others free. These examples show how new technologies do not improve the rate of change in a linear fashion. Where one robotic arm was attached at a time after trial and error, hundreds of apps can be developed and deployed simultaneously.

Platform technology such as Salesforce significantly enable new technology. An assembly line is limited to anyone who has access to the manufacturing floor of the shop in question. Salesforce is available to anyone with an internet connection. In America, almost zero people don’t have technical access available to Salesforce in 2018 (doesn’t mean it’s used by everyone with internet).

It’s the invention of these platform technologies – where other technologies and improvements can be made on top of one technology, that drives the constant change. This started with the invention of the internet. When the internet was turned on, people could shortly after contact multiple people at a time and solve problems from anywhere in the world through email and discussion forums. That was the beginning of what led to Salesforce applications.

These platforms and new technologies also indirectly promote new technology. By eliminating old jobs and removing the need for human labor – which is the goal of technology, new hordes of people are left in need of employment. In an advanced world, lots of that employment is in technology fields. So, the scores of people who would have found employment laboring in a profession before are now picking up technical educations and competing against or creating new technologies (not commenting on the sustainability of this, but it is the current state). These products and services are where the demand is for jobs. Plus, there’s incentives for the creative entrepreneurs through venture capital and public offerings, that offer major cash payouts to companies that succeed.

Accelerationism is the primary force driving change in the world today. This is because:

  • Digital platforms allow people to constantly build and deploy new technology.
  • Jobs are being eliminated by computers doing human work. This allows computers to aid in humans learning. This also allows more humans to be working on other ventures.

It is not worth going to college for any field outside of STEM or Philosophy.

It is not worth going to college for any field outside of STEM or Philosophy. It made sense until 20 years ago to go to college and get a degree. A degree showed a competence and intelligence that stood out on a resume. By presenting a degree to an employer, the employer knew you had the intelligence to go to college and the independence to make it through years dealing with adults.

College only cost hundreds of dollars, and degrees, whether STEM or humanities, led to almost guaranteed employment. This was during a time when the management professions and the “value-add” industries like advertising and marketing were added to businesses. These value-adds came from the humanities. Marketing and advertising appeal to the psychology of people. Management is applied sociology.

These were the booming jobs of the time, and a humanity degree not only checked the college box – it was preferred. These degrees added the value that organizations were looking for.

The labor market has changed in the last 20 years. Universities changed too, but they did not change to keep up with the changes in the labor market. The changes in universities ran counter-productive to the changes in the labor market.

Where humanities were the value-adding jobs from the 50s through the 80s, the internet has changed the requisite jobs and, because of that, the requisite skills needed. The internet runs on math and technology. STEM degrees are the degrees that are employable. The management and marketing jobs of the 50s are being replaced by technology just like the labor-intensive jobs were replaced 40 years before. The reduction in management and marketing jobs means fewer degrees in humanities are needed.

STEM is the humanity degree and the management job of the 60s. These are the employable degrees and the driver of technology, which is the driver of the current economy. Instead of management and sales adding value like 50 years ago, technology is able to add value by cutting out the managers and the salespeople. Technology connects buyers and sellers where the humanity-pedigreed salesmen did until recently.

Humanities degrees are being produced like money in a collapsed economy. Except, unlike money in a collapsed economy, the degrees being produced cost tens- to hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, we have more people graduating college than ever, which has debased the degree so that not all graduates are guaranteed a job. Humanity degrees add little value in this technology-driven world where life is managed with code.

The majority of students are still choosing to major in the humanities. There are a majority of college graduates leaving university unprepared for the job market, which is technology-driven and requires technical degrees. Also, they have hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans that must be paid back.

These debt-ridden graduates have to find employment to pay back debt. Those that are lucky find themselves a management or marketing job, which are decreasing in number as technology improves and reduces the need for these functions. Those that are unlucky pick up a low-paying service job. This has become a stereotype – the barista with a humanities degree. A well-read barista is attractive – there’s nothing wrong with serving coffee. A barista who has to be there because they owe the bank $200,000 is not attractive. That person is enslaved with no way out in sight. They must work for a company until the debt is paid off. There is a legal and ethical commitment to pay off the debt.

Why are there so many humanity degrees? Because of those blasted humanity degree students from 50 years ago. The universities and banks are profit centers that make money with each enrolled student paying tuition. There are advertising channels that promote more students going to college and getting degrees. The banks and universities don’t care what degree is studied. They care about $200,000. Which, if that’s the price of tuition and the person is working at Starbucks to pay it off, she will end up paying far more than double that.

College is a scam for everyone that is not majoring in a STEM degree. Students are sold a lie that they “need to go to college” to get a job or to find a good relationship. This is all just branding by the universities and loan banks. Any skill can be learned online these days, and banks and universities are sweating hoping the masses don’t drop out to develop skills online. The advertisers are working hard to keep the college brand attractive. They are heavily incentivized to make college attractive.

“It’s an important phase of life.” “It’s where you develop the social skills.” These are all jargon statements sold by the loan banks. You know what else is an important phase of life and a place you develop social skills and have fun? Timeshares in retirement. Rent a timeshare to signify your new phase in life. Meet other travelers and party. You can do this for a lot less than a college degree.

The exception to all this is the philosophy degree. The philosopher learns that none of this is really necessary. You can get a degree in STEM, get a high-paying job, create a technology that makes businesses better, but if at the end of the day you still aren’t satisfied because of an insecurity or relationship drama, then what’s it all for? To better humanity? That’s great, as long as it doesn’t cost your suffering. You can make money and then face your insecurities and internal demons, or you can face your demons from the start. Many people face a demon called consumerism. The philosopher recognizes this demon and stays away.

You can become a philosopher by reading books, through experiencing all the hells of consumerism and life, or through an expensive degree. Being philosophical is worth it. The philosopher finds meaning in life itself, and knows not to become enslaved to debt, or anything else. Hopefully, he didn’t buy an expensive degree to learn that lesson.

It is not worth going to college for any field outside of STEM or Philosophy. This is because:

  • The price of tuition is increasing.
  • Skills needed for jobs are becoming more technical.
  • Philosophers understand you don’t need jobs and can find meaning without the 9-to-5.

Democracy inevitably leads to socialism due to evaporative cooling of high-value individuals.

In the long-run, all democracies will turn away from their capitalist origin to socialism. This is destructive, tyrannical, and entirely natural. This happens because of the evaporative cooling of high-value individuals. Meaning, there are fewer high value individuals that are interested in competing for status.

The strong favor and thrive in a competitive, capitalist society and crave the freedoms that can be earned. The strong are out-reproduced by the weak. This goes contrary to many proponents of Darwinism, but it is actually directly in-line with Darwin theory. There are two Darwinian strategies for survival. One is to reproduce with the strongest and best to produce the strongest and best, because that is what is most likely to survive. Traits such as physical strength, cunning and mental ability, leadership and social savvy – these are all traits sought after and signs of reproductive fitness.

The other Darwinian strategy is to mass reproduce. Mass reproduction, whether through multiple partners or one, requires less work than finding a strong partner and places emphasis on quantity, not quality, of genetics – and therefore offspring. Through this, even if a couple offspring die off and don’t successfully reproduce, one or two will. This is a reproductive strategy favorable to weak individuals.

These weak individuals are the losers in the capitalist system. To succeed in capitalist societies requires similar traits that make for attractive reproductive (masculine) qualities. Social savvy, intelligence, even physical strength – these are qualities women find sexy and qualities that are rewarded in the job market.

These traits are masculine because they are favored in the sexual market by women. More intelligent, wealthy women do not have higher value in the sexual market. This also contributes to an evaporative cooling of the successful because these intelligent women have far fewer children than non-intelligent women, if any at all.

Losers in the job market cannot afford the luxuries that are available to the wealthy – those that succeed in the capitalist system. However, they want the same luxuries. They want them for two reasons – they want more than they currently have, because they see the wealthy and want what they can’t have. Also, the bottom classes often fail to have the spiritual freedom that comes with wisdom which, most often, comes with intelligence and experience. Instead of seeking spiritual freedom, the bottom classes are more likely to want material things to escape unhappiness of the day-to-day.

This means that the bottom classes in a capitalist system are more likely to want things, less likely to earn and afford the things they want, and therefore likely to despise the wealthier classes that are capable of both earning, getting, and not needing. Over time, this bottom class is likely to grow, since they are the ones that reproduce most, since that is the reproductive strategy that makes the most sense for their situation.

As the bottom classes grow, they will be more likely to gain favorable political position in a democratic society. A democracy favors those who are the majority. When that majority is intelligent and strong, the majority will tend to a capitalistic society where competition and incentives reward success. These capitalistic societies grow in technology and infrastructure.

When the majority is the lower class – made up largely of the weak, unintelligent, and wanting, the majority will favor a socialistic society. This is one where incentives are broken, and the poor are rewarded with the efforts of the rich. We have seen this in every society that has tried socialism. It always starts with power in the hands of a few. Stalinist Russia started with a revolt against the landowners, which were few in number. When the masses stand up to the few in number and take control, you get the poor in material and the poor in spirit and the poor in intellect at the head of society.

When you have the poor in spirit, intellect, and material at the head of society, you get them taking the material by force. They want and feel entitled to things, so they take it. They do not have the spiritual strength to require earning the things they want. And they don’t have the intellect to understand or consider the implications of their actions. Sure, as they start taking and disincentivizing production, the economies collapse and governments turn to other methods of producing perceived wealth.

When the poor in spirit and intellect rule and their economy slows down, they have done several things in the past, none of which have been to incentivize production or employ austerity programs – these both go in the face of their philosophy that got them in power, and the desires that led to their rise to power.

No. Instead, the socialists have printed money, as if the paper with the president’s face on it is the answer to the economy. Worthless money does not create a worthwhile economy. Printing money devalues the money in circulation and drives up the price of goods, without influencing the value of the goods.

Capitalism fuels this change. Because the lower classes make up the majority of consumers, the most successful businesses market to these demographics. Not just businesses, but anything requiring money, votes, or consensus. That means politicians and, when it comes to receiving funding, institutions such as schools and hospitals. Businesses will cater to the lower-value individuals. They will promote entertainment and ideas that appeal to the masses, at the expense of the values and interests of the successful.

The other strategy is to forcibly take from the wealthy. Since the lower classes continue to suffer, the wealthy are forcibly taken from and their goods given to the poor. The poor in material, intellect, and spirit bring down everyone.

How do you defend against this? I never understood China’s one child rule until I wrote this essay. By limiting reproduction among citizens, you can effectively control the ratio of high-value individuals and low-value individuals. This requires government oversight into communities stretching into the slums.

The alternative to this is to not have a democracy. A dictatorship of sorts removes the possibility of the lower classes taking power through democratic election. Dictatorships, however, still face the problem of lower classes reproducing at higher rates than the upper class, high-value individuals. When the lower classes unite, they can topple the much smaller dictatorship using their numbers and force. It’s bloody, and it’s bound to happen.

No one’s happy, and the poor are willing to fight to see if the riches will make them happy. Riches won’t make them happier, because they will still be poor in spirit, but they will fight for the riches anyway.

Democracy inevitably leads to socialism due to evaporative cooling of high-value individuals. There will be fewer high-value individuals because high-value individuals don’t reproduce at the rates of low-value, and the values of modern high-value individuals will cease to be promoted in media and academia. This will lead to socialism because the jealousy of the lower classes will work its way into public policy that redistributes from the wealthy individuals.

Many more economically free cities like Dubai and Shenzhen will come into being in the next 50 years.

Dubai and Shenzhen are economic centers for their geologic regions. These cities are exceptional because they allow a free economy to exist in locations that otherwise rely on government oversight of production, or have until recently.

Dubai is in the United Arab Emirates, and has emerged the largest global economic center in the middle east in the last ten years. Most countries in the middle east have relied on state-run oil companies for most of the economic activity. This oil is traded overseas, which has allowed the middle eastern nations to participate in global trade. The nation, or in many cases, OPEC, the oil-producing nations operating as a unit, were the ones making decisions that impacted the global trade. This is in contrast to the western world, where the entrepreneur, whether the individual or the CEO, is in charge of strategic decisions.

In the Middle East, economic activity was never at the discretion of the individual, but up to the nation that supplied oil to determine which products and services it would allow into its country. The country determined the values which guided the spend and trade that occurred with other nations. For instance, the country could prioritize fruits and vegetables, and limit the citizen’s freedom to indulge in an overseas candy bar. More commonly, these nations chose to trade for arms and military weaponry. The country decided that weapons were more important for all the citizens, rather than each citizen having a say.

China was long-ruled by communist political regimes that put similar constraints on trade. Negotiations on imports and exports were led by the leader of the country, or the minister of trade. This put constraints on the freedom of individuals because they could not choose how to spend the dollars that they made.

Countries operating with free markets allow the free-flowing information and tools across country lines – whether digital or not. When countries such as China or United Arab Emirates puts constraints on individual’s ability to produce, this does two things. It discourages individuals from producing and limits their ability to be productive compared to other countries in the world. Also, those individuals that want to produce and ignore the constraints of the country are encouraged to leave to a country that is willing to accept their ideas and labor. This is bad for the country, as they are not able to receive the benefits that that individual wanted to contribute.

Individuals want to contribute to their country, and their country wants them to contribute. By participating in a free economy, an individual is able to improve the situation for himself and his local community. Through participating in a local economy, not only does an individual spend money locally and trade for local goods, but he also pays taxes, creates products or carries out services that are, necessarily, valued by the local community (he wouldn’t get paid otherwise), and innovate. An individual must be able to try new ideas. He must be able to fail, if ever the country will innovate. The ideas that work are the ideas that are voted on by people willing to spend money to see them scale.

These days, these constraints are being destroyed by technology and the competition of other countries. Just like companies compete for the sale of products and services, the countries that house those companies compete for labor and business that produce tax revenue so the country can fund its projects. As free economies prove to be more productive and more innovative, those countries that choose not to participate in the free economy are left behind.

Further, economic constraints are being destroyed by technology. Social media has allowed people to communicate globally, instantly. Global marketplaces and shipping companies allow for people to purchase and receive goods anywhere in the world. Technology companies that depend on digital skills can recruit talent globally, and those skills can be put to work in any location with internet access. There’s internet access in every country.

These skills can be learned online, in many cases for free, from any location with internet access. As more intelligent individuals are given access to the internet and the tools that are now a part of it, more individuals will have access to these markets, and more individuals will have the ability to produce and contribute to the global, and their local, economy. Central hubs for innovation – London, New York, Silicon Valley, are no longer gatekeepers for talent and resources. The same resources can be found anywhere in the world, and talent can be encouraged to stay in those economies outside of the original hubs.

As more educated individuals have access to this global economy, more people will be able to participate in the economy. Because they no longer need to fly to New York or San Jose to get the job that enables them to contribute, and because the country they live in will be incentivized to provide them access to the global economy, more economically free cities will manifest around the globe.

The growth of cities will happen internationally – such as Shenzhen in China and Dubai in the UAE, and this will happen nationally. More cities will emerge within nations as this talent pool grows and resource constraints of hub cities become less important. In the United States, more cities will become internationally competitive. Atlanta, Denver, and Austin are three examples of cities that claim to be tech centers – and rightly so.

This growth will only be sped up when access to capital becomes available to individuals outside of hub cities. In the United States, many startup companies are funded by venture capital firms. The majority of these are located and prefer funding in Silicon Valley. That is one more hurdle that will be overcome through the increase in talent outside of “The Valley” and with the decentralization of funding – through technologies such as cryptocurrency. Decentralization will allow entrepreneurs to raise funding more easily through their own marketing efforts which can be targeted towards financial institutions or individuals looking to invest.

In summary, more economically free cities will come into being in the next 50 years. This will happen because:

  • Economic constraints are being destroyed by technology, where people can work from anywhere and make money from anyone.
  • Central hubs (New York and London) will be less important because of the connectivity of people, and more educated individuals that will have access to their local economies.
  • Governments are incentivized to reduce constraints to maximize long-term growth of local markets.

Women have more intrinsic value than men.

Women have more intrinsic value than men. This means that women have more natural value than men. Nature gives women their value, where men must find their value in the world.

Women are valuable across many dominance hierarchies. Out of the box, they don’t add any more value to a corporation than their fellow man, but they have far more value in sexual markets.

Women are born with the characteristics that make them attractive to the other sex. These aren’t evident at the moment of birth, but they just need to stay alive and not interfere with the characteristics that make them attractive. A fit woman that develops a feminine physique is an attractive woman.

These (fit, feminine) are the characteristics men evolved to find attractive. A woman who is young and has hips, a butt, and isn’t fat, suggests that she is able to bear children. The hips and butt suggest fertility, the lack of fat suggests health. Biologically, that’s all a woman needs to prove her attractiveness to a man. Femininity is more about a girl’s demeanor. It means she isn’t aggressively competitive or dominant – traits that may lead to success for men in the dating ecosystem.

Women are the more selective sex. This naturally results from the woman’s egg being lower in supply than a man’s sperm. Because her eggs are lower in supply than the available demand, like any economic good, the eggs are deemed of high value. All that’s physically required of a man in order to reproduce is his sperm.

A quick sex, and he’s done his part, physically. When the man is done with sex, he can be ready to reproduce again in manner of minutes if he is young, and hours if he is older and less virile. For a woman, she requires nine months of carrying out a pregnancy, at least, until she is able to reproduce again. Plus, she is at birth (at the latest) bonded to the child she carried with her for those nine months. The child will generally remain under her care until it is ready to join the world without her. Legally, that typically happens at 18 in the United States, and that’s about the minimum that an individual is mature enough to go on his own.

Those 18 years and nine months require resources and time. Therefore, the woman is incentivized to attract a man that will remain with her and share the investment in raising the child until it is an adult (at least). Therefore, she must be more attractive enough to, at least, be selective enough so that the man chooses to remain with her instead of leaving to maximize his reproductive abilities elsewhere. This form of commitment must be reached by appealing to a man on a physical and emotional level and, hopefully, his mental values.

All these characteristics, those required to attract the man, and those required to gain commitment of a man, are natural gifts given to women at birth and realized as she matures. She does not require building these skills out in the world, where the man’s ability to provide resources do require building skills.

In her own psychology, a woman can be gifted with the confidence that she will be able to attract a mate based on the gifts she was given at birth. This confidence is shakable, no doubt, but she can have confidence in something without needing to build skills that would allow a man to be attractive to the other sex.

Women have more intrinsic value than men because she is born with her sexual value and her ability to choose a mate. These attractive characteristics evolved out of the necessity to reproduce, and the woman’s egg is more valuable than the man’s sperm. Because she is born with this, she can have a natural confidence in her interaction with the world.

Attempts at creating ‘true socialism’ have killed more than 100 million people.

True socialism has killed more than 100 million people. This happens through the necessary actions that are taken to institute a collective economy that would reap the “benefits” that the collective set out to accomplish.

Socialism has good intentions. The goals have always been reasonable. Stalin wanted to eliminate the economic inequality between the upper and lower classes. Hitler wanted to create a nation of strength in military and economic production. Pol Pot wanted to defend against nationalism, another form of totalitarianism. Equality, fighting nationalism, and military strength are all good things – especially in times of war and uncertainty. It was by making these values visible that these leaders were able to organize political parties, which led to the totalitarian ends.

The problem isn’t in setting these goals, it’s in the execution. The means to accomplish these (otherwise noble) ends are what leads to death and suffering. The goals are vague, and the means to accomplish these goals are even more vague. When a political system that is fueled by people that believe in these values, and has the support of the masses to carry out these values, which they believe are in their best interest, it gains the power to accomplish these goals by any means necessary. And the means override individual values, necessarily. Trading one authoritarian policy for another still results in totalitarianism, which inevitably leads to death. Usually, lots of death.

China’s Mao wanted to create a socialist ideal, one that was by-the-book Marxist. To carry this out, he demanded food and resources from the workers. When production slowed down, and resources were gathered without payment, tens of millions of people starved to death. Millions died in similar fashion in North Korea and the Soviet Union. The Great Chinese Famine that occurred under Mao starved over 20 million people to death. Many millions died of starvation in Soviet Russia, Cambodia, and many others instances where socialism was carried out (Cambodia, Korea).

There are three reasons starvation is common in socialist states. The first is that resources are seized by the state. So, those dependent on their own produce are often squeezed thin. Production slows to almost nothing when the incentives of distributed labor are removed from the economy. So much less food is produced. Last, illness takes over, which is harder to defend against without proper nutrition. This leads to outbreaks in disease and premature birth.

The murder of “the enemy” is often killed by socialist regimes. The Bolsheviks killed anyone deemed an “enemy of the people”. Bolshevik leaders determined there were more than one million of these enemies. Mao’s China killed off similar numbers of dissidents. This seems almost reasonable in modern days. If someone believes in hateful ideology, doesn’t that make them hateful, and shouldn’t we do something about that? We should debate their ideas and prevent their spread. We should not force individuals to believe in one doctrine over another. But it is exactly this mindset that leads to the killing off of civilians.

The problem with this is that someone needs to decide who is an enemy and who is not. When a political party determines who is an enemy, then there is lots of room for interpretation and the allowance of bias to come in. For instance, it can be easy to point to a political opponent and say that he is one of the “enemies of the people” instead of competing against him in a fair campaign. This leads to the oppression of individuals, as they are no longer free to carry any (however natural) ideas in their own head and to share and challenge those ideas. You must get in line or die.

Hitler gathered support by promising a booming economy and a strong national image. This was enough to rally his nation during tough economic times that followed the loss of World War I. During the course of his rise to power, he cast goals that the Germans could rally behind. Winning the war was a huge motivator. To rise up from losing the first war to become a global player is a hell of a promise. Even better – blame others instead of the Germans for losing the war and for the tough times that followed (see: Jews during World War II).

This is a recurring theme in all dictatorships and tyrannical societies – they gained the favor of the majority, or at least the loud minority, before turning “evil”. How could people support a system that has led to such destruction? Again, it’s the promises of good things that lead to the destructive means. When equality, national strength, or the suppression of an idea (e.g. nationalism) are prioritized by a political movement, it’s easy to see how destructive policies can result. It’s easy to see because it has happened multiple times and because, theoretically, the means to institute a socialist state lead to oppression and often death.

In summary, the attempts to create true socialism have killed more than 100 million people through:

  • The removal of people that disagree with the values of the collective.
  • War, which is often a prioritized value that the collective must then value.
  • Death by food shortages, rioting, and lacking health care.

Free markets are the only form of democratic representation that is viable over the long-term.

The concept of the free market and emerged division of labor allows an individual to put his money, the results of his labor, where that individual chooses. Through that choice of investment, the individual gets to prioritize the goods and services that he finds most valuable. By choosing to invest in services he finds most valuable, he, in a significant way, votes for the continued availability of those services.

Even if the values, and from those values resulting the products and services, that an individual aspires to are not represented in a free market, the individual has the option of creating those products and services that can be of value to him. If the services are of value to others, then those can be exchanged in a free market system. They can be shared or traded for profit. If they are not wanted by other individuals, then that individual can create his own and seek his own fulfillment, but by not being recognized as important by others, he may need to sacrifice the potential profits that can be acquired by participating in a trade that is more valued by others. He may need to live a life of poverty in order to live out those values which are most important to that individual.

With free markets, the values of any given individual are not guaranteed to exist in an economy. That individual can build them and bring them into the world. Without free markets, the values of any given individual are not guaranteed to ever manifest in the economy. When the individual’s interests are not manifested in the economy, there is no way to guarantee he can spend to acquire the services that individual finds most valuable.

Totalitarian systems necessarily rule out the option for each individual’s values to be represented in the economy. Totalitarian systems create values that represent the values of the collective. The system is responsible for creating the values for every individual that is a part of the economy, instead of each individual being allowed to have his own values which can then be pursued by that individual.

Collectivist economics necessarily leads to this totalitarianism. There is no way to represent the interests of every individual, because the values are prescribed from the central organization which creates the values and prioritizes the goods and services that will be produced.

The goal of a collectivist economy is to manifest the wants of the individuals in control. These may represent the majority, and they may represent a small group of idealists. Those are prioritized over the wants and wishes of each individual. The wants and wishes of the individuals with different values have to wait until the other goals are accomplished by the collective.

If universal healthcare is desired by the majority, and resources and capital are spent to make universal health accessible, then the individual that values art will have to wait until universal health is accessible to everyone, and he will have to work towards universal healthcare. Only when that is accomplished will the collective then be able to get to work on other values. That could be art, or it could be housing and transportation infrastructure. No one individual gets to decide what he can work on.

The free market allows each individual to live out his own values, and to vote on what matters to him. A man can be an artist and risk not making money while he does what he loves. Another can choose to buy art. Another can buy health services. It is the free market that allows this free decision making.

In summary, free markets are the only viable form of long-term democratic representation for the following reasons:

  • Totalitarianism necessarily rules out democratic representation.
  • Collectivist economics necessarily leads to totalitarianism.
  • Free markets put individual investment where people want.