Politic seen by an autist

Asperger Syndrome sometimes results in this, since a lack of ability to read social cues means that attempts to diminish the appearance of deception aren't picked up on. Notably, many are less susceptible to hypnosis of any form, due to having to interpret subtle signals consciously. A study that came out a few years ago (but seems to have vanished from search engines) found that people on the Autism Spectrum (including Asperger's) were less vulnerable to certain kinds of emotional manipulation (specifically, they were less likely to change their decisions in game scenarios when a move was presented as "avoiding a loss" vs. a "gain"). The abstract of the paper seemed to be going to great length to frame their results in terms of "too dumb to fool" and ensure that no one mistook the traits they were describing for a strength, insistently describing subjects with Asperger's at some length as "failing" to integrate certain kinds of (objectively and rationally irrelevant) information into the decision-making process.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooDumbToFool

That seems to sum up many of my main differences between I and most people.

For example, to me, definition of "exploitation" is not important to me. Exploitation can be defined as taking advantage of others. In that case, all transaction is exploitation. I exploit my employee to get things done and my employee exploit me to get paid. Another natural definition of exploitation is relationship that's not mutually beneficial. In that case, I see tax as exploitation while capitalism is not. But then again, it's just definition. It means nothing.

To me, defining exploitation to
Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or ...; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking

is very unnatural. It simply points that the definition of exploitation is so inherently vague that it really doesn't mean anything. However, for most "normal" people, re framing women trafficking and prostitution as "exploitation" would make them behave differently, like supporting criminalization. To me it's just what it really is, re framing with nonsense definition.

To me, the ONLY different between marriage and prostitution is whether government is the pimp or not.

All other differences are either irrelevant or simply not what the law actually says. There is nothing in the law that says that prostitution must be promiscuous. In fact, sugar babies are not promiscuous. You can have love, commitment, etc. outside marriage.

You can commit financially to women, but it's illegal unless government is the pimp. To me, that's the only relevant essence of anti prostitution laws.

Defining marriage as civil union between 2 people is also very unnatural to me. Why 2? Why not 5? Why not 10? What is so special about 2? And even if you want to hang out with your girlfriend, do you need to get married? Unnatural or vague definition is most likely irrelevant because you can't analyze anything with it with every body have different meaning of the same word.

Observing how marriage and prostitution is defined in most countries simply show that the relationship where government is the pimp is favored by government, as expected.

Many says that he is not aware of any laws limiting the number of children rich people have.

Again, here is the issue. To me, whether government says that it prohibits, discourage, fine, tax, or whatever, is logically, practically, and objectively irrelevant.

Most people, when they make a decision, will simply look rationally, how much extra cost I have to pay if I do A, instead of B. Say I want to get burgers from McDonald. If I pay I have to lost $5. If I put a gun on the cashier's check, I may end up going to jail. Then people would rationally compute the marginal rate of substitution between $5 and jail time and act appropriately.

I suppose Bill Gates would rather pay, while starving hungry homeless guy will just rob.

So in a sense, the word "prohibit" means little. For those starving hungry homeless guy, jail threat is not prohibitive at all. He'll die if he doesn't rob. Societies would either cut his hand to make robbing more expensive, or use positive incentive, such as feeding the law abiding poor. As societies grow richer and richer, I understand that the second way is more popular. If I have billions of dollars, why should I create so much ill will over food? I don't feel like it. Yes, I have feelings too. Maybe I am not truly autistic.

However, I am well aware that my emotion have evolved through trillions of years of evolution and that my reasoning has evolved only the last 20 years. So I don't usually do things I don't feel like knowing that it will usually lead to bad outcome, even though I don't know how. Usually, I ended up knowing how.

While redistribution of wealth is not ideal, I do not see that as necessarily evil. Evil is so vague it means little to me. If the cost of feeding them, including the political cost of further encouraging laziness and cradle to grave parasites is cheaper than the cost of killing them/jailing them, including the political costs of building up precedents from being too cruel, it's probably not worth too much arguing about. Just compute the costs, pick the cheapest, and be a billionaire.

The biggest problem of wealth redistribution is not that it exist, but that it's done and managed by politicians that have too little incentive to actually accomplish anything. Those politicians want votes and voters are ignorant. When more and more countries are capitalistic too, most capitalists will simply move to better places and those voters will start having incentive not to be ignorant and will demand slimmer government that'll get what they want at less costs to capitalists. Future is bright.

What's relevant to me is not whether government prohibit, fine, tax, discourage, or anything. What's relevant is how much extra cost a person has to pay for robbing?

So to me, the only thing relevant on whether government limit the number of kids the rich have or not is simple. Does government artificially, and significantly,[b] increase cost of reproduction for the rich[ to the point that the extra costs are prohibitive/b]? The answer is big yes.

To me, government paying the poor so they can get rich looks a lot more like government subsidizing the poor or encouraging poverty and well, we get more of it. How much more? Ask economists. It doesn't matter whether government say that they give the poor money to eliminate poverty, instead of encouraging it. The fact is government give money, and that means encouragement.

The word like freedom and consent also doesn't ring as much to me as to most people once I realized that it too is vague.

If there are 5 stores, A, B, C, D, E. Governments prohibit you from buying from A, and you end up buying from B. Are you consenting to buy from B? Well, yea. You could have tried C, D, and E but you prefer B. Imagine if government prohibit B, C, D, and E? What about if government prohibit A, C, D, and option E truly sucks? What about if government prohibit A and you are way better of picking A instead of B?

Government doesn't force you to get married. Government just prohibit prostitution, women trafficking, sex with your secretaries, etc. Gee. Celibacy sucks. To me, that looks like government effectively forcing people to get married.

So you see? I don't delve into word games as much as normal people. I just look at the game structure and infer on what's really going on.