John A. Quayle
blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET
Tue Oct 2 00:36:17 MDT 2007
WND Exclusive Commentary
Hillary and Karl Marx
Posted: June 9, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
speech, Hillary Clinton described the Bush
administration as a "government of the few, by
the few and for the few." She's wrong; the Bush
government is bigger than the Clinton government.
Nevertheless, the government she described might
be the government Thomas Paine had in mind when
he observed: "That government is best which governs least."
Hillary doesn't agree with Paine's observation.
She says she prefers a "we're all in it together"
society where "government can once again work for
all Americans," with "opportunity for all and special privilege for none."
This could be scary. If, in the world Hillary
prefers, one person achieves greater success than
another from an equal opportunity, does the
result constitute a special privilege that should
be denied to the more successful?
Hillary believes in "pairing growth with
fairness." This must be one way "government works
for all the people" by keeping track of the
success achieved by all the workers to make sure
someone doesn't get a "special privilege" as the
result of greater success than another. No wonder
she doesn't like a government that governs least;
it takes a lot of government workers to work for all the people.
Hillary's rhetoric and voting record reveal a
philosophy that penalizes success by taxing the
rich and rewards failure by expanding the work
government does for other Americans. Hillary's
description of the government she prefers is one
that takes "from each according to his ability,"
and redistributes "to each according to his
need." In fact, she told a San Francisco
going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Thomas Paine's observation, which succinctly
describes the government designed by the U.S.
Constitution, could not be further from the Karl
Marx vision of Hillary's preferred government.
The great disappointment in America is that.
increasingly, more people seem to prefer
government to do more "work for the people," and
thereby move further toward the Karl Marx vision
than the Thomas Paine vision of government.
There is a direct correlation between the freedom
people have and the "work" government does for
the people; the more there is of the latter, the
less there is of freedom. For government to
prevent "special privileges" to some, it must
know about all, and it must place active
constraints upon some to advance others.
Economic growth, according to Hillary's
philosophy, must be governed by rules that
"protect our workers and give all people a chance
to succeed. Fairness doesn't just happen. It
requires the right government policies."
Hillary's vision is not of a free market, nor of
a free people; it is a vision of government
control, enforced "fairness" and limited opportunity.
Hillary's philosophy is not exclusively hers, nor
does it belong exclusively to any political
party. It is a philosophy that prevails
throughout Europe and has grown steadily in the
United States for most of the last century. It is
a philosophy that empowers government to impose
its will upon the people in the belief that the
opinions and theories of professionals are
certainly better than the self-seeking whims of ordinary individuals.
The definition of freedom is: the self-seeking
whims (and responsibility) of ordinary
individuals. Or, put another way: "... the pursuit of happiness."
Under the leadership of Democrats and Republicans
who share Hillary's philosophy, government is
constructing an all-encompassing web of rules and
regulations. This web is formulated not by
elected representatives of the people, but by
appointed professionals who work throughout
government agencies. Self-appointed, so-called
professionals who represent special interest
groups, often funded by government grants, lend
their expertise to the hard sell of the
philosophy that government-enforced fairness
makes a better society than does individual freedom.
Hillary's philosophy continues to permeate public
policy in education, economic development, health
care, land use, environmental protection,
international affairs and every other corner of
society. The solution to this problem, and the
salvation of America, lies not in the elimination
of rules of behavior, but in the method by which
those rules are developed, adopted and enforced.
The genius of the American system of government
is the idea that government power is limited by
the consent of the governed. This consent is
conveyed when representatives are empowered at
the ballot box to enact rules of behavior. When
the rules these representatives adopt do not
receive the consent of the people, then the
representatives can be sent packing and new representatives elected.
When the rules of behavior are developed, enacted
and enforced by people who are not elected, the
people have no way to convey or deny their
consent. Government usurps the power from the
people and imposes its will as it wills.
This is the kind of government Hillary and a
great many others want. This is the kind of
government they describe as the government they
will continue to build. It is the kind of
government in which freedom will continue to
diminish, and eventually fade into oblivion.
Related special offer:
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution"
<mailto:henry at freedom.org>Henry Lamb is the
executive vice president of the
Conservation Organization and chairman of
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.36/1041 - Release Date: 10/1/2007 10:20 AM
More information about the Rushtalk