Former Libertarian presidential candidate Austin Petersen has a new podcast with an intriguing thought: Is electing Hillary Clinton better for liberty than Donald Trump?
Here is the podcast:
Allow me to extrapolate his thinking here:
1. Austin equates growth of government inversely with the diminishment of people's liberty. This may not be an exact truth, but it is close enough for "government work". (pun intended)
2. Neither Trump nor Hillary, by themselves, is good for liberty. Agreed, since they are both basically big government types (fascist and communist, respectively).
3. Austin is voting for Gary Johnson, but he does not think Johnson can win, although he doesn't explicitly say that.
4. Historically, a Democratic president with a Republican-led Congress is best for limiting government growth. It doesn't stop government growth, but it does limit it extensively.
Ergo, Hillary being elected president, along with a Republican majority Congress, is the best we can get for the next 4 years. This is like the old saying about superstar football players: "You can't stop him; you can only hope to contain him."
Anyhow, I take the opposite view: If a democracy must inevitably end up as a dictatorship, wouldn't it be best to go ahead and elect Trump to get that out of the way?
No comments:
Post a Comment