>>6057
>>6066
>In true charity, affection is always matched by obedience. If B surrenders himself to the care of A, he becomes a ward of A. A, his sponsor, assumes the obligation to support him, and also takes responsibility for any misdeeds B may commit while under his sponsorship. In return, B gives up his freedom, or at least his freedom to disregard the wishes of A.
This is complete bullshit. There's never been any degree of control implied in charity, and without entirely denying art as a concept and all cultural achievement you can't presume that patrons are seeking to limit those patronized to their own capacities.
>So, for example, Steve Sailer asks: where was capitalism? Why wasn’t anyone betting against these loans, and driving them down to their true value?
The housing bubble was created literally by the government forcing loans to be issued, and those unnatural loans were tied up in the genuine value of the companies issuing them (under duress). Those companies value did decrease, insofar as they weren't bailed out (which they were).