![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/RyanFlagConstitution.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\nRUSH: I have Paul Ryan with the second most famous CPAC speech ever. Well, I take it back. Paul Ryan with the third most famous CPAC speech ever. The first was Ronald Reagan\u2019s, then mine, and then Ryan\u2019s, third most famous CPAC speech ever. I want to read to you the opening of his CPAC speech. And, by the way, Cookie, you should get me this \u2019cause Snerdley, you got me ticked off here. “What about Ryan destroying Medicare?” Yesterday on Meet the Press, Rachel Maddow — you know who Rachel Maddow is? She\u2019s the queen bee of MSNBC. She is said to be the most articulate, the most brilliant spokesman, commentator, analyst that the left has on cable TV. So she was on Meet the Press with Rich Lowry of National Review, who destroyed her on Medicare cuts. She had no answer for the fact that it\u2019s Obama who cuts Medicare $710 billion in Obamacare. She had literally nothing. It was a demonstration of how this can go. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Anyway, back to Ryan\u2019s CPAC speech. “There are those who say that modern society is too complicated for the average man or woman to deal with.” And that is being said. That\u2019s the whole premise of liberalism. You\u2019re incompetent. You can\u2019t manage your own life. You\u2019re not smart enough. You\u2019re not able enough. You\u2019re not competent enough to make the right decisions in your life. “There are those who say modern society is too complicated for the average man or woman to deal with. This is a long-standing argument, but we heard it more frequently after the mortgage credit collapse and financial meltdown in 2008. They say we need more experts and technocrats making more of our economic decisions for us. And they argue for less ‘political interference\u2019 with the enlightened bureaucrats \u00c2\u2026 by which they mean less objection by the people to the overregulation of society.<\/p>\n
“If we choose to have a federal government that tries to solve every problem, then as long as society keeps growing more complex, government must keep on growing right along with it. The rule of law by the people must be reduced and the arbitrary discretion of experts expanded…” So you buy into this complexity argument, you are automatically buying into “only government can fix it.” And as the complexity increases and it gets tougher and tougher — do I eat trans fat or not? Now they\u2019re saying buttered popcorn, microwave buttered popcorn causes cancer. Well, that\u2019s complex, all of these threats that exist to staying alive. We need competent people to make these regulations and decisions, \u2019cause you can\u2019t. And all that means is that government must continue growing right along with the complexity. So therefore the advocates of complexity, this argument, are advocates of bigger government. Now, here\u2019s the payoff. <\/p>\n
“If the average American can\u00c2\u2019t handle complexity in his or her own life, and only government experts can \u00c2\u2026 then government must direct the average American about how to live his or her life. Freedom becomes a diminishing good. But there\u00c2\u2019s a major flaw in this ‘progressive\u2019 argument, and it\u00c2\u2019s this. It assumes there must be someone or some few who do have all the knowledge and information. We just have to find, train, and hire them to run the government\u00c2\u2019s agencies. Friedrich Hayek called this collectivism\u00c2\u2019s ‘fatal conceit.\u2019 The idea that a few bureaucrats know what\u00c2\u2019s best for all of society, or possess more information about human wants and needs than millions of free individuals interacting in a free market is both false and arrogant. It has guided collectivists for two centuries down the road to serfdom — and the road is littered with their wrecked utopias. The plan always fails!” It always has failed.<\/p>\n