We are all unique individual born with advantages and disadvantages that allows us to tailor and go through this world as ourself. Being born 'beautiful' is a satistical advantage, ugly will make life harder, but the market have opportunities for everyone.

Well unique situation can be handled at the individual but what if it something half of the population has ?

Let's be frank, women are worse than males in the free market. Exceptions exist of course but the truth is, women goes through their menstruel cycle every month which has massive productivity impact. They also give birth which takes them out of the market.

Did you know that women in their early thirties have a much harder time finding a job ? This is mainly a form of 'discrimination' because employers assume she'll get pregnant soon.

The libertarian in me answer is basically to accept it, and you'll be better off as there's more wealth around. But I am not confident stating such fact, especially when the objective is not just economical benefit, but it's for the purpose of living a dignified life.

I guess it's not surpise many people like the politics that pushes 'equity' and our typical answer is off putting to anyone in such situations.

I myself, more inline to accept some forms of social equity to help out those at a disadvantage in the market

This is easily the single biggest problem in the Libertarian sphere.

We've mastered the arguments, steel-manned the other side and still won, and been vindicated by the tragedies of history over and over and over.

The reason we're still dragging is because we're *cold* and *analytical* - we care about the largest good for the largest group over the longest time, and THAT IS A LEGITIMATE APPROACH... but it requires accepting some harsh realities at the ground-level and thinking systematically - which can make us *technically correct*, but we read as *assholes* when we argue that way. And when someone reads as an asshole, *people stop listening*, regardless of whether or not that person is right.

If we want to make headway, we *have* to master both ends of the spectrum: understanding the harsh limits of reality that we've grasped while also holding sympathy for those we're discussing with.

This is ultimately why the left wins most political clashes despite being economically wrong so often - because they *lead with empathy*, which is *inherently* motivating regardless of whether or not it's right.

Eric Garner was selling single cigarettes in New York City from packs without tax stamps. When two police officers tried to arrest him, he pulled away. The policemen tried to "subdue" him, with one of them putting Garner in a chokehold.

The official cause of death was suffocation. The manner of death was homicide. The underlying cause was the state protecting its tax "revenues" (more properly seizures) with violence. You can't spell enforcement without force. Violent reaction to non-violent is aggression.

Today’s economy offers an interesting contrast to Andrew Mellon’s prescriptions. Decades of QE, zero rates, and bailouts have inflated serial bubbles (tech, housing, AI infrastructure, speculative microcaps) while enabling a golden age of fraud: dilution-heavy stock promotions, circular financing, related-party tunneling, SPAC hype, crypto boom-and-bust, and zombie firms sustained by cheap credit.

Easy money has not eliminated risk—it has socialized losses, privatized gains, eroded societal trust, transferred wealth, and impoverished the masses.
Andrew Mellon understood that economic pain is an unavoidable law of thermodynamics: when you misallocate capital on a massive scale, the loss must eventually be realized. You can either take the pain up front through a swift, intense market clearance, or drag that pain out over decades through inflation, stagnant growth, and generational debt burdens.

Mellon’s liquidationism was not an act of cruelty; it was the ultimate form of economic realism. In an era currently buckling under the weight of unpayable debts and currency debasement, Mellon’s defense of balanced budgets, sound money, and letting the market find its true floor looks less like an antiquated error—and more like a prophetic warning.

As a wealthy industrialist, Mellon was well placed to recognize the pattern: interventionism preserves “bankrupted elites” and distorts market signals, breeding the excesses that eventually burst.
Although liquidation might be harsh in the short term, it ultimately clears space for genuine value creation in the future.

The caricature of Andrew Mellon served its political purpose in the 1930s, but his ideas demand a profound reanalysis today. Andrew Mellon was a successful industrialist, banker, and policymaker who delivered measurable prosperity through discipline and whose diagnosis of boom-time excesses remains more prescient in today's interventionist consensus.

>The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

By John Maynard Keynes

PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300071h/gerpref.html?hl=en-US#:\\\~:text=Nevertheless%20the%20theory%20of%20output,a%20large%20measure%20of%20laissez%2D