Notice the built-in assumption that it is necessarily better “for the common good” for the state to have more money at its disposal. I wonder if it is merely a political calculation, or do people like Hillary actually believe that more good is done by having the federal government confiscate money from individuals and spend it according to the desires of the political class in Washington, than by allowing the individuals to spend or invest the money that is rightfully theirs?

This is the great intellectual fight that we need to win. We have got to convince large numbers of people that letting Washington (or Raleigh) take more money is throwing good money after bad.

The problem we face is the old one of the seen versus the unseen. The benefits of private spending and investment are largely unseen — at least, most people don’t make the connection between jobs, incomes, the availability of goods and services and the fact that those things come about due to voluntary actions that depend on money that was not taxed away. On the other hand, politicians are always trumpeting the supposed benefits of some program (like Medicare drug benefits) to make certain that people see them. We have to turn people’s perception around. Once they grasp that the government’s “seen” benefits come at a huge cost in foregone “unseen” benefits from voluntary action in the market, support for Hillary-type politicians will shrivel.