Look at this nigga,

It would appear from the opening statement that Mr. Leviy is addressing some individual privately referred to as “this nigga.” We can assume from the singular form of the noun (nigga, rather than niggas) that Mr. Leviy is directing his charter towards one individual, a person so widely known that he is recognized by just the article (this) combined with the noun (nigga). However, a deeper analysis allows for an alternative finding, specifically that the noun “nigga” is not meant to describe an individual at all, but rather a subset group of individuals yet to be illustrated.
We must break down the text to find merit in the proposition that the term “nigga,” in this instance, is actually a metaphor for the subgroup for which he is directing his disincentive. Under this rationale, “this nigga” is actually a group of individuals that all share common traits. To further illustrate this hypothesis we must first dissect the noun “nigga,” paying close attention to its usage and origin.

“Nigga,” while facially in singular form, (meaning person or friend) has a unique and schizophrenic etymological history. Perusing the historical record, the term “nigga” has often been used to describe an amorphous group of individuals. In the traditional use of the term, which has been adopted by urban culture, it is expressed as a term of endearment and a symbol of belonging. In the instant case, when you combine the article (this) and the noun (nigga) with the verb (look) and the preposition (at), I will argue that one will excavate the reality that the phrase “look at this nigga” is an expression of contempt to not one person, but a group of individuals similarly situated.
Mr. Leviy is not instructing us to literally see an individual by utilizing our ocular abilities, he is asking us, quite succinctly, “can you believe what this subset group of people are doing?” What remains to be seen is who comprises this subgroup, Mr. Leviy? What are the characteristics of the members of this subgroup? These answers will clearly delineate the important features of membership vs. non-membership; apropos the conduct undertaken on daily basis, what is quintessential to membership in the subgroup?

stuntin in front of Justin's, actin silly
If it wasn't cops all over, I'd smack him with this milli
You hoe niggaz move a brick and think they rich
Get a few guns and a click and wanna take over shit

Mr. Leviy immediately delves into conduct that is idiosyncratic of the subgroup referred to as “this nigga.” We are immediately acquainted with the fact that this subgroup engages in conduct such as stuntin, actin silly, abrasive false perceptions of wealth, and procuring conspicuously insufficient amounts of ammunition for attempted takeovers. This behavior does not seem to affect the author directly, however, he is proposing to us that this behavior disgusts him and that we should also be disgusted since we are now aware such behavior exists.
It seems that in this stanza, the author is laying the foundation for his disincentive structure by giving the audience a dark and distasteful view of the actors in question, possibly to rationalize the existence of his structure to begin with. By garnering support of a majority of the consumers, Mr. Leviy defines the actors in question as the “other” in a crafty manner. He has, in this sense, diluted the empathy that may currently exist for the subset group “this nigga,” in order to create camaraderie behind a common goal of disincentivizing their behavior. In effect, the author has created a consumer fad in the consumption practice of inhibiting the behavior of his undesired conduct and the members that perpetuate that conduct. This ingenious move not only is a declaration of contempt, but it also the call to arms of all non-members of the subgroup. This, in essence, acts as an artificial stigma that will attach a societal cost for those who conduct themselves similarly to those situated in the subgroup. He is playing the pied piper to the macro-economy, craftily manipulating the consumer market at his will.
At this point in his thesis, Mr. Leviy has identified the actors in question, the conduct that they typically engage in and his distaste for that conduct. He has also manipulated the consumer market to aid in his ultimate goal of restricting the supply market of those conducting themselves like the subgroup. If he can detail his consequences in a manner that optimally disincentivizes the undesired conduct, we may have stumbled upon the Bach Concerto in D Minor of incentive structures.

I ain't comin up offa, no cheddar, no bricks, no nothin
I'll kick that motherfucker, FUCK HIM, yeah I'll pay him somethin
Pay his ass a visit, blow his brains on the sidewalk

Wow! His preliminary description of his prescribed deterrence is clear, concise and offered with a dose of clever double entendre. Mr. Leviy begins by describing that he is not a man born or reared in opulence. However, despite his relatively humble upbringing and way of life, he is very proficient in the time honored art of homo sapien destruction. He provides clear consequences to the conduct undertaken by the subgroup “this nigga;” namely he will exact bipedal assault on their person (as a side note his exclamation “FUCK HIM” was not inferred by this writer to mean a threat of rape, but merely an expression of the aggression present in his state of mind at the time he wrote his analysis). He also ends, most cleverly, with a play on words, (pay being both currency and the providing of a service) detailing that the carnage will not end just with a strike by his foot, but he is willing to go to the extreme of discharging a weapon aimed at the offenders head if the subgroup does not cease and desist with the aforementioned conduct.
I am pleasantly surprised with the clarity to which the author expresses his proposition. We are currently only missing one small piece to puzzle; how effective will these consequences be in deterring the conduct of the specific individuals in question; in essence will they effectuate the outcome which the author has purported to accomplish from the outset.

Went back to the spot to grab the guns
Semi-auto check, AK-40 check, shotgun check, revolver - that's perfect

Ahhh! It appears that Mr. Leviy, possibly worried that the consequences were not dire enough, attempts to illuminate the extent of detractors potential carnage by cataloging the vast array of weapons he will deploy in order to get his point across. While I applaud his diligence in providing notice to all potential offenders, I am still uncertain as to how effective his punitive actions will have on this specific set of actors.
What unique trait about your deterrent structure speaks to your specific subset? Are they particularly risk averse when they are threatened with gunshot wounds to the head? Do they have some psychological predilection towards a fear of kicking? The answers to these questions are not clear. Let us hope that he will provide us with the link between actor and consequence that can convince this writer that the optimal strategy has been undertaken.

Ski-masks and stockings, seen him down the ave. boppin
Him and a friend, just hopped in a Benz
Twenty inches on the rims, let's follow 'em slow, keep 'em in sight
Wait til he stop at a red light, then roll the window down
and kiss them bitches goodnight

Here the author moves to a fictional first person narrative to provide a hypothetical scenario resulting directly from deviation from his proposed structure. He assumes defection, and gets very clear and specific in what will occur to said defector. One may assume that the author believed the practical description of consequences he lays out may have hit home with the listener. While such a scenario may be plausible, this author disputes such an optimistic assumption. While one could argue that the persuasive power of his depiction of his consequences takes a particularly delightful turn in narrative form, overall such literary techniques fail to resolve the question of why his deterrents are specifically odious to his explicit subgroup.
Mr. Leviy rests on his laurels here; he believes his consequences are so objectively onerous that he need not fine tune them to appeal to the unique fears and desires of the rational actors he seeks to deter. Such an overconfident belief is unnecessarily dangerous. Would it make his proposition more difficult to finish if he provided specific disincentives? This writer cannot endorse such a proposition. It appears that Mr. Leviy has taken an uncharacteristic turn towards laziness in an otherwise near perfect economic proposition. His structure is so near flawless that I would recommend that Mr. Leviy make a remix, adding the missing features that I have detailed. There is no excuse for not fixing such a small problem considering the obvious natural talent that the author has in reforming the actions of others to complement his mental tranquility. Please make these revisions Mr. Leviy, so that your listeners may basque in the masterpiece of rational theory.

Incentive Structure Grade: A