13

Is Hilary Clinton A 'Statist'?

Posted by khalling 8 years, 11 months ago to Politics
43 comments | Share | Flag

One explanation is the enduring fondness among limited-government adherents for philosopher and author Ayn Rand, whom her associate Harry Binswanger described as having “tirelessly promoted” the word’s use. She viewed statism as the notion that “man’s life and work belong to the state – to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation – and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own, tribal, collective good.”
What 2016 Presidential Candidates and Hopefuls fit Rand's definition of 'statist'?

All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago
    Straight up, 100 percent and doesn't bother to hide it. However the history of it goes back to the development of National Socialism from the original socialist movement though in the end not much between them. Mussolini and company changed King or Royalty, Aristocracy and Church to The State, The senior members of what is now called corporatism always including banking and union leaders but not union members. Statists, Corporatists, Unions.they made no bones Statists controlled the other two supported. almost a hundred years later I give you that same definition as the triumverate of power in the new aristocracy with Statists primarily Democrats and Republicans primarily corporatists both primarily looters and unions primarily the leasers of the moochers. The rest just act the parts assigned.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    there are plenty of libertarians who would disagree ranter. you are supporting a small 'state.' I think it is essential to capitalism, but a state nontheless
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Being in favor of a proper government is not statist. Being in favor of a government that has all ultimate power, in a society in which the needs of society trump the rights of the individual, is statist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I tend to agree with jdg. However, I also maintain that acts have consequences. A woman can make a choice -- to get pregnant or not to get pregnant. In the circumstances in which she has a choice in the matter, the pregnancy is the consequence of her choice to have sex without preventing pregnancy. She has to "live with" the consequences of her choices.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is why many people draw the line at viability. Then there isn't any duty to continue to carry.

    Myself, I draw the line when the forebrain develops, about the 15th week. After that there should be no abortion unless the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is probably not going to survive anyway (kidney disease or similar situations). Before that the fetus is just an animal (not enough of a brain for moral agency).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Huckabee, Chris Christie, Rubio, Santorum, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry -- all hopelessly statist.
    Rand Paul, Ted Cruz -- about as pro-freedom as you can be and still be a Republican candidate.
    Scott Walker, Ben Carson, maybe Mike Pence -- borderline.

    I'd vote for Paul or Cruz if nominated. And probably Walker -- enacting a right-to-work law is a big deal for me. Any of the others, absolutely not.

    The silver lining here is that the Democrats have only one potential candidate with enough brains that she could likely enact most of their agenda, and she's not interested in running -- DiFi. Hillary is just another Obama.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is a potential human being called a fetus. After birth outside the womb it is a child called an infant. The fetus is not an animal any more than your liver is.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 11 months ago
    Of course 'It' (hiltery) is...all of these like creatures are, dating back as far as the 'fallen idiot': those that fell favor to your son's, your daughter's and our animal kingdom. These creatures haven't changed a bit, never evolved much beyond the cosmic slime that brought them forth. They are the great unwashed and you are the elite. It's well past time to get this straight.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 11 months ago
    they might all be so categorized, K -- but the least
    statist-addicted might be Carson, Cruz, Paul, Walker ...
    but there are revelations daily. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 11 months ago
    All politicians are to some degree statists because that is how they derive and sustain their power. The better question is along the sliding scale of statism, where do our politicians fit?

    Hillary Clinton is obviously a hard-core statist, because her ideology is one of government control and oversight of everything. Other politicians are less and less statist as they uphold Constitutional limits on government powers enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    where is the line drawn? If you force the woman to carry the fetus, you make her a slave.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I mean, Rand advocated for a proper government. That is statist. Just not her definition
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So is it your view that a child in the womb, ready to be born and capable of surviving as a normal infant after birth, is not a child at all but some kind of animal? As I see it, it is unquestionably a human being -- and infant to be sure, but still a human being because it is undeniably human and it is undeniably a being, separate in being from its mother.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 11 months ago
    Definitely Senator Bernard Sanders (Independent(?) of Vermont). But if you wanted to know who would fit the bill of Kip Chalmers, of Taggart Tunnel fame, that would be Hillary Clinton.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 8 years, 11 months ago
    Of course Hillary is a "statist", but not just on the national level, she bows down to the UN. She promoted the parts of what became UN Agenda 21 as First lady, before it had a name. If elected, she would likely not only continue Obama's plant to subsidize poor families ability to live in rich neighborhoods, but would start the conversation she had as First Lady, of how many spare bedrooms do you have for the homeless to use? It is all to discourage home ownership and send everyone into tiny crowed inner city apts., thus fulfilling Agenda 21. he wants power via control, and it goes beyond national.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Correct. Cruz is also a statist. There are degrees of statism, of course. Hitler and Mao are more statist than Clinton (I hope). A key marker is the degree to which the prospective candidate rails against the constitutional barriers to the omnipotent state.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 11 months ago
    Ron Paul is the closest we can get among the current crop of candidates or almost candidates, to being an anti-statist. However, he is so good at sticking to his guns that he irritates the Washingtonians and will have a real struggle getting the nomination. It is very likely that the Republican candidate will be a mixed bag of about half good and half bad. Even that type candidate, though, will be at least 50% better than BHO.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 8 years, 11 months ago
    Is the Pope Catholic? Well, let's see; some on the right in the Catholic Church claim he is about to modify doctrine, which supposedly a Pope cannot do. Some on the left in the Catholic Church want him to modify Doctrine. We'll have to wait to see how Catholic he really is. Regarding Clinton, perhaps, but more likely she is for whatever gets her votes, power and wealth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 11 months ago
    Worse than being a statist, Mrs. Clinton is a globalist.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo