Saw this the other day.
Tim Kaine, who I am sure is a nice man and well intentioned (as well as any statist could be), probably believes much of what he says. But let’s examine it further.
He says the democratic party is for the “little guy”, “the underdog”, and they “fight for them”.
So, how does punishing producers help the little guy? Making products more expensive, limiting freedom to choose (not only what to buy, and from whom, but from where to work and under what conditions) doesn’t help anyone. It harms them. So harming them first, them ameliorating that hurt, is hardly what I’d consider good policy.
Second, he brags about forcing insurers to provide coverage on dependents up to 26. Why stop there? Why not 36, or 46, or until death. All that will happen is that insurers will simply offer less product, or raise their prices. And as I’ve written previously (yeah, a while back, but it is still true!!) the insurance companies aren’t the ones covering those 26 year old kids. It’s done through pooling, which is an act of theft, meaning its the other insured customers that pick up the tab one way or the other.
Most importantly of all, to fight FOR someone, you must be fighting AGAINST another. Thus, the government is engaging in an act of aggression against one member of society. The very notion of freedom of voluntary exchange is disintegrated. A government that commits acts of violence or coercion, be it real or just the threat thereof, is a tyranny. Period.
Equality of and under law be damned.
Force used for “good” is an oxymoron. Of all the forms, this is by far the worst form of tyranny. Is he a stooge, a fool, or evil? Does it even really matter?