My most recent post here at LITD dealt with the logical conclusion of the hey-it's-going-to-be-one-or-the-other-nd-consider-the-stakes mindset: Charlie Sykes making the mirror opposite of the Michael Anton-Flight 93-election argument. It's what a number of folks I''d greatly respected until recently had concluded. I'm talking about those vehemently opposed to the Very Stable Genius who feel the need to publicly endorse the Harris-Walz ticket.
My dismay was considerable when Adam Kinzinger went this route.
When Heath Mayo of Principles First so cast his lot, I was less so, because he'd already taken positions that made me question his conservatism.
Still, I think it's a little amusing to see him so disappointed that this is his ticket's first indication of an economic policy position:
Price controls? Really?! Come on, Dems. This is not a time to propose first-of-their-kind federal controls. Few want top-down government rethinks of the economy. Sanity, stability, and a commitment to the Constitution. That’s all it takes to win this election. Don’t blow it!
Collectivists gonna collectivist, Heath. Free market enthusiasts extending good faith to them usually does not result in anything the free marketers want. The collectivists care not a whit about the debt and deficit their redistribution incessantly exacerbate, much less the freedom of individual producers and consumers to arrive at agreements on the value of goods being exchanged without interference.
Giving a thumbs-down to Trumpism does not translate into support for this stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment