While some of this may be true, I can imagine that in her decades of public service, she also helped make the lives of many people better with things she championed or helped make happen. May be best to look at people based on a more wholistic approach, but I understand that that would be a more complex way of presenting things. Simply saying everything she did was rent seeking is a patently unfair portrayal.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
Most of the public service is either openly malicious and corrupt, or just naive wealth redistributions under the threat of force. And most people are very blind to the unseen effects of these redistributions.
Of course, there might be individuals and individual cases which benefited from her. But if you want to look at her aggregate net contributions, then you should look how much wealth she helped to produce. Did she ever run a profitable business, or at least has been employed in one? If not, then her legacy is about being parasite on top of productive society.