I thought about a friend who’s pro-small business, pro-military, pro-religious freedom – of course! This is America! – and she will vote for Obama. She believes that the state should take more property from people who die with X amount of money in the bank and give it to other people, and while she’s not exactly sure about what X should be, this is necessary because of Fairness.
That does seem to be the dominant idea in the land these days, no? The State shall have the power to do X if the objective is Fairness. The details – and the actual result – are less important. If you believe the State should do these things, why, it stands to reason that it can, and and hence any limitation of the powers of the State is a mulish obstruction of a better world.
Good people do not vote against such things.
She also believes, I think, in the following propositions:
The severing of the concept of marriage from the traditional understanding of male-female-children is inconsequential, and that the definition, thus expanded, will hereafter suffer no additional challenges;
Access to abortion is a prime metric for determining the worthiness of a society, but the details – quantity, sex-selection criteria, late-term instances – are relevant only inasmuch as they are cudgels used by those who would ban the procedure entirely, and hence they are a diversion.;
The deficit can be solved by taxing other people;
The financial industry was unregulated prior to 2009;
Inflation is just a thing that happens, like weather;
The State never forces you to do anything. It merely “asks.” The true coercive power in society today resides with corporations.