Hillary Clinton just admitted that she thinks that you only deserve what you earn at her behest. It’s a statement that unintentionally displays the absolute arrogance of the Democratic Party:
Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters – some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend – to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
"Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (Emphasis mine)
This is exactly what is philosophically wrong with liberalism. It is based on the assumption that what you earn through your labor is not your own — everything you own belongs to the state, and the state can exercise the right to take as they wish. Hillary tells us it’s "for the common good" — which is all fine and good until you realize that the definition of "the common good" is whatever Hillary Clinton says it is. Usually "the common good" ends up being padding the pockets some obscure functionary in a nondescript government office.
More broadly, Hillary just admitted that she’s in favor of neofeudalism. The justification for feudalism is that you accept the right of your lord to take what he wants when he wants in exchange for that lord protecting you. That’s essentially what liberalism is – neofuedalism. Instead of having a feudal lord, you have the state. The state offers you "protection" and in exchange you not only swear fealty to the state, but you give the state the right to take whatever they want from you whenever they want. You surrender your right to property in exchange for some security.
Which works nice so long as the lord is willing to play by the rules. But as they say, power corrupts, especially when that power comes with little to no responsibility. So, when the lord of the land realizes that he has the right to score with all the hot farmer’s daughters, or a Congressman realizes he can bury a $10 million dollar porkbarrel project to build a Center for the Study of Global Warming Caused by Michael Moore’s Flatulence After Eating Too Much Taco Bell (CSGWCMMFAETMTB) and no one will make a stink (other than Michael Moore), all that goes out the window. If the security of your life or property depends on the kindness of strangers, you’re not free. And if you think that the government is any less capricious and vindictive than a feudal lord try not paying your taxes on time or sitting in line at the DMV. Hillary wants to argue that the government knows best what’s good for you, and "the common good" outweighs any rights you have.
Except that notion should have died with the Magna Carta, the Enlightenment, and the pot wearing off sometime in the 70s. Instead, it lives on in the form of state socialism and Hillary’s state paternalism. The whole point of liberalism (and I mean the real liberalism – the political philosophy of Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu) is that the state does not have the right to infringe on basic individual rights – and as Locke pointed out, one of those basic rights is the right to property. When I do some work, I add value to something, and I make it my own. If I take a tree that is on the land that I have title to and make a chair, I own that chair. Someone else can’t take that from me in a liberal society. I created it, I own it, and no one can deny that right. Unless I use that chair to beat some sense into Senator Clinton, it’s none of the state’s damn business what I do with it.
Under Hillary’s point of view, that all goes out the window. Her conception is that the state can contradict the doctrine of individual property rights in the name of the nebulous concept of "the common good". That isn’t to say that the state doesn’t have the right to levy taxes – it certainly does – what that does say is that what you keep after taxes isn’t kept because the government grants it to you – it’s because you’ve earned it. Your money is your own, not the government’s. The government does not have the right to take what it wants when it wants. This country was founded on the concept that no government has the right to do things like this. Quite frankly, it’s time for another Boston Tea Party. I suggest throwing the Democratic National Convention in Boston Harbor this July – let them float off to France where they can’t do any more damage.
Essentially, Hillary is arguing that we don’t actually have the right to what we earn, that we should be greatful that people like her let us keep what we do, and that she has the right to take whatever she wants when she wants in the name of whatever she defines as being "the public good". So, if Queen Hillary decides "the common good" involves giving away mink stoles to inner-city mothers on crack, we all have to foot the bill.
The last time this country had a system that made those assumptions it was called slavery.