Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Actual Justice Warrior"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm ashamed to admit it, but this sounds like she's meeting her men in clubs, and they act like I acted when I was into the club scene. Even if they're - maybe especially if they're - up-and-coming young men, working their way toward something, she's just the broad they hooked up with along the way, and not the best they can do. If they're her age, and all they've got goin' for 'em is they're hot, I doubt they're ready to settle down into a real family situation. The losers just aren't ready, and the winners don't want to take the time. The (eventual) winners are still working on themselves, and squeezing every ounce of fun out of their free time. She's way advanced for her age group in a lot of ways. She just needs to find the right guy a few years older than her. Not much, necessarily, but I don't think most guys her age are at her level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is one of the great ironies of America in the 20th (and now 21st) Century. The very same "anti-fascist" thinking justified our turning to very authoritarian, fascist-looking policies to FIGHT fascism in its NAZI form. For top-down economy - for the war effort, of course - they came up with this big Leontief input-output matrix for war-time production. It was all very top-down and very satisfying to people whom Adam Smith would call "System Men." It's also very satisfying to war planners who want X number of tanks and Y number of planes. It's also just complicated enough for them to feel smart that they understand it, even though they're WAY oversimplifying reality to a 10x10 or 100x100 matrix, when in reality, the entirety of the economy is essentially an infinite-dimensional beast, by the time you get anywhere close to the individual-exchange level, especially if you're trying to make it run for any period of time, with many factors varying over time, such as the wheat yields, cost of transportation, condition of roads and the markets. And other products that people also need that may cut into the price of bread, e.g.
To this day, so-called "liberals" see the economy in much the same way, and they want to be the people deciding what the inputs need to be for the desired outputs. They THINK they're being compassionate and fair, but they reduce reality to a vastly oversimplified, mechanistic view of society. That may be useful for making predictions in the large, but it's far too complicated in REALITY for any person or agency to fully encompass. Adam Smith knew this in the mid-18th century! He talked about the "invisible hand" that guides people to behave morally in order to enjoy the benefits of the efforts of others.
The idea is you don't MAKE them make 100 loaves of bread for 100 people, but if there are 100 people with something of value to offer for bread who were at the market yesterday, the baker will make sure there are at LEAST 100 loaves of bread for sale in the market, tomorrow, in order to receive that value from the expected 100 people. Nobody TELLS her to make 100 loaves of bread to fulfill the expected "need."
She wants those schillings! And SHE will make it HER business to bake enough bread to get as many schillings as possible, without making much MORE than that, because that's wasteful and costs HER money. What we get is a market that miraculously (the invisible hand) that produces just enough bread and not too much, with far greater accuracy and efficiency than ANY government agency could do. They'd waste a lot one day, and not make enough the next, and, because nobody really pays the cost of waste other than some taxpayer nobody really sees during the decision-making, nobody (except the taxpayer) is punished for their inefficiency. Furthermore, if they believe that what they are doing is "right," then the individuals who are damaged by their control of everything are just "collateral damage" that is part of the cost of providing more justice to more people.
The sad thing, to me, about the state of liberal thought, today, is that these principles have been well-understood for 300 years (give or take), but our education system does everything it can to paint freedom and free trade between free people as a bad thing. In actuality, it's what brought us up to the level of economic prosperity and free thought to
1. end slavery
2. end discrimination on the basis of gender, race or sexual orientation (Except for pedophiles. Acting on their preferences is and shall always be criminal.)
3. create an industrial and technological revolution that brought more people up from abject poverty than ever before and in an amazingly short time.
But liberals don't understand this. They think government led the way. But true conservatives' (classical liberals') take on the march of human progress sees the direct connection between people finally being free to make their own choices and own their OWN property, in a world where ALL such things were dictated from on high for centuries.
The so-called "right" sees betterment of society trickling UP from the people at the BOTTOM. Give us freedom to make our own decisions, and more of us will improve our circumstances. And when it's just us schmucks at the bottom the only way to climb the rungs of Maslow's ladder is by being TRUSTWORTHY and providing REAL VALUE to our equals in a free market. It's not a perfect system, but it's more fair to more people than any other system yet devised. And liberals (so-called) are taught to despise this engine of prosperity and social evolution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1