Tag Archives: Hillary

Hillary’s “Ridiculous” Hypocrisy

http://vrep.org/order-and-showcase-registration-forms/showcase-registration-forms/iowa-showcase-forms/college-registration/ Hillary Clinton’s effort to avoid blame for her breach of protocols due to the “ridiculousness” of the rules she broke violates her core statist principles which dictate that the state should regulate human activity because it does more good than harm when it does so.  Those principles motivate her policy positions…at least as long as they don’t inconvenience her or get her into trouble.

buy clomid singapore Last week, Hillary Clinton seized on a Politico article authored by Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department official, in defense of her e-mail account misconduct.  Miller wrote that “the sheer volume of information now considered classified, as well as the extreme, and often absurd, interpretations by intelligence officials about what is and is not classified, make it nearly impossible for officials charged with operating in both the classified and unclassified worlds to do so without ever mixing the two.”  Clinton jumped at the chance to justify her conduct linking to the article and tweeting neurontin 300 mg discontinued “‘Our ridiculous classification rules’ are the real problem”.  In doing so, she acted contrary to her core beliefs as a statist in order to provide a defense for her misconduct.

Hillary Clinton is a modern liberal statist and advocates government regulation of human activity.  She thinks the government should regulate citizens in farming, industry, employment, health care, food safety, drug safety, and virtually anything potentially affecting the environment (which of course means just about everything).  She thinks the government can and should undertake such an aggressive and all-encompassing regulatory effort because society benefits if it does so.

She is aware of the monetary costs, inefficiencies and lost opportunities these regulations impose on citizens.  She knows that the rules and regulations which touch upon every aspect of life must prove unfair or unreasonable on a daily basis in their application to specific individuals whose unique circumstances could not have been considered in the adoption of rules to be universally applied.  She obviously does not think that a plea of “ridiculousness” is a defense sufficient to overcome the application of a rule or regulation applicable to society at large.

The three legitimate functions of government are, (1) ensuring individual liberty, (2) securing the nation from foreign aggression and (3) administering civil and criminal justice.  Though modern liberal statists like Clinton go far beyond, advocating the routine violation of the first function by virtue of myriad regulatory and redistributive schemes mandated by force of law for the supposed benefit of society at large, modern liberals still formally acknowledge those three core functions of government.  Obviously, the classification of information for national security purposes falls within one of those core functions, namely, securing the nation from foreign aggression.  Accordingly, virtually everyone agrees that the protocols for classifying that information play a key role in fulfilling one of the government’s core functions.

Without hesitation, Clinton seized upon the argument that the rule proscribing her conduct is unfair, unreasonable, or “ridiculous”.  She made this point despite the fact that the rule she complains of is integral to one of the primary functions of any government.  Implicit in her tweeted statement, is an acknowledgment that the government cannot always get it right, even when performing its most essential functions.  Also implicit in her statement, is an assertion that the statist political class isn’t, or shouldn’t be, subject to the same stringent inflexibility with respect to the rule of law as the great unwashed masses.  Of course, hypocrisy in the application of laws to the political class is nothing new.  Recall Congress’s ObamaCare exemption.

The bottom line is this – top down, invasive, abusive regulations are just fine when imposed on you for any reason the government thinks is a good idea.  If regulations aren’t reasonable and you suffer expense or inconvenience, that’s ok because it’s all for the greater good.  You aren’t sufficiently important and don’t have enough “pull” to achieve an exception for yourself.  But expect the Secretary of State to comply with protocols deemed crucial to national security which she thinks are unreasonable, cumbersome or inefficient?

Don’t be ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

Please follow and like us:
0

Hillary Employing The Statist Playbook; Divide And Dupe To Gain Power

Hillary Clinton garnered praise from organized labor for backing New York’s increased minimum wage.  Organized labor is a special interest looking for its share of patronage from government.  Whether organized labor praises any policy position is not the question.  The question is, what does that policy position do for (or to) society at large.

It is illegitimate in a free society for government to use the force of law to modify what would otherwise be voluntary exchanges.  Consider; I am willing to work for you for $1 an hour.  I’ve judged it in my best interest to do so.  Otherwise, I would work elsewhere. 

You are willing to pay me $1 per hour and are satisfied with my services.  The government forces you to pay me $2 per hour and you say, “well, at least everyone else has to pay more too.  I’ve lost no comparative advantage.  But now my profits will suffer unless I raise prices.” 

What do you think you will do?  You will raise prices because you will lose no comparative advantage in doing so.  You know that everyone else who hires so called “minimum wage workers” will make the same decision to raise prices. 

However, later, when your customers decide to purchase less of your product, you will suffer.  Over time, you may realize your sales have decreased somewhat so you may reduce prices a bit in order to increase sales.  But your profit margin will then be lower than it was before the government mandate came into effect. 

Through this process, the immediate benefit of higher wages for me, is counterbalanced by your widely dispersed and far less identifiable lower profits and by higher prices for consumers.  Finally and ironically, those higher prices will end up neutralizing the original coerced pay raise.  Those who received the mandated pay increase have living expenses which must rise as well.  They are consumers, and no consumer is immune from the choice which must be made; pay more for the product or use less of it. 

The minimum wage is a ruse used by the political class to dupe voters, nothing else.  At the end of the day, the statist politicians get what they want…votes.  Everyone else is, at best, left in the same situation as before the mandate. 

In a free society, government has no business compelling the terms of voluntary transactions.  When it comes to the economy, we must demand that our elected officials “make it free and leave it be”.

Please follow and like us:
0