Posted on 01/02/2017 10:56:17 AM PST by Olog-hai
“If you are not weak, frail, defenseless, or otherwise handicapped, you should be working to contribute to that society.”
How about full-time moms who stay home and raise the children? Should the government force them to enter the work force and “contribute”. Maybe it is not really the job of government to determine how much or little a person should work and “contribute”. Maybe the government is ill equipped to monitor such things.
Obviously we need fiscal policies that benefit us as a society. We should not be providing an incentive for laziness or anti-social behavior such as addictions to drugs, alcohol, and perverted lifestyles.
“At the instance, a guaranteed annual income is Socialism and at the extreme, Communism. Both have been tried and neither has survived in the long run.”
As I pointed out in my other response, a basic income is not necessarily socialistic or communistic. Kuwait has done it for many years fairly successfully. There certainly are consequences. And since their economy is entirely based on oil, they are fairly vulnerable to the impact of oil prices.
I suggest that the primary source of revenue to support a basic income could be derived from intellectual property rights. Such rights are not intrinsic or rights based on natural law. They essentially are derived by the government appropriating and restricting the natural rights of free citizens. Therefore it is wholly moral and just to compensate free citizens for the protections afforded by our government which is of the people and by the people.
Always the socialists/communists try and describe what socialism/communism is while claiming at the same time that a proposal within the dogma thereof is not. No; any governmental “safety net” is socialism/communism. What is dubiously termed a “safety net” is the domain of private charity and private enterprise.
Any “subsidy” is one’s own earnings taken by the government and returned to them minus the government’s “broker’s fee”. Nothing equitable about it at all, and no fit inside the philosophy of US conservatism. Start making the people comfortable in poverty and society breaks down.
“One assertion for another.”
The difference is that Musk has a multi-billion dollar company with massive technological research and development, and marketing research. Your (and my) opinion do not have that behind them, except I happen to agree with him.
“their implementation or otherwise is and will be forced by government”
Interesting observation. But this has to be one thing the federal government must do. How else do we have standardized roadways and traffic signs? Are you a radical libertarian like John Stossel who thinks traffic regulations are unnecessary?
The transition will probably begin with self-driving cars having a human as a backup driver and exclusively allowing these cars to travel on dedicated highway lanes similar to how HOV lanes work now. Then it will become desirable in order to save time. And eventually so many people will adopt, the majority will want to keep human drivers off the roads to save time and make the roads safer.
“To me the ONLY way to do a universal income in the USA is everyone of legal age gets it and it is exactly the same for everyone regardless of how many kids you have etc.”
Correct. I don’t know IF it would work, but it is the only way that is equitable. Again, though, it must be for citizens ONLY.
“No; any governmental ‘safety net’ is socialism/communism.”
Sorry. You are just plain wrong about this. And your response is a typical knee-jerk reaction based on ideological dogma rather than critical analysis.
Law enforcement is a safety net. Emergency services is a safety net. Disaster relief is a safety net. Do you think conservatism is just economic survival of the fittest when dealing with disease, draught, widespread crop failures? How about other major natural disasters? How about war?
The key is to go to the underlying principle of ownership and treat the rich and poor equally rather than with favoritism.
“Start making the people comfortable in poverty and society breaks down.”
As I said, you have to avoid incentivizing things like this.
The very existence of currency involves government. The conservative utopia you imagine does not exist any more than the communist or socialist ones. Conservatism is about limited (not non-existent) government and personal responsibility (not pie in the sky self-actualization).
When people or companies innovate, our government rewards this with a limited monopoly (which unfortunately has been parlayed into eternal monopolies) for the benefit of everyone. This requires the forfeiting of certain natural rights of free citizens. These rights have value. Benefits given in exchange for these rights is both reasonable and consistent with conservatism. And that does not remotely resemble socialism or communism, especially when you remove means testing and replace it with the one simple test of whether someone is a citizen.
No; history proves me “plain right”. FDR’s creeping socialism starting with so-called “social security”, then Johnson’s Medicare (and worse, including the 1965 amendments to SS that essentially created Medicaid) have created cultures of dependency and entitlement, and not a thing about them even required before their institution; they are not even “safety nets” but Ponzi schemes. All designed as attacks on the family, and also on the economy; not to mention to increase the power of the federal government.
As for money, take note that its coining was a power solely given to Congress, and there was no impetus to imitate the British Empire by creating a central bank. And to be utterly frank, governments are not needed to create money and/or its value: take note of Bitcoin.
I think every Mom should stay at home and take care of the kids, at least until they get into school. But I have also seen how women get pregnant with no father in the home just so they can get various income subsidies. To me, that's playing the system, and there are a lot of people playing the system. I think you'd agree with most of Beard's book, and you might give it a read.
We should not be providing an incentive for laziness or anti-social behavior such as addictions to drugs, alcohol, and perverted lifestyles.
Agree 100 percent, but we already have people who play the system. What I object to are the able-bodied who are capable of work, but don't. I think a guaranteed income would simply compound the problem. There's just too much evidence to show that would be the case.
I am not arguing that Social Security and Medicare, etc. are not socialistic.
But how do they fit with anything I have described? Neither program has any real budget. Both give means tested benefits.
Conservatives need to have viable proposals to replace the socialistic programs in place today. These will never fly if they do not provide a path to independence and prosperity for those who currently are dependent on the government. The only other way is to fight a costly civil war. And that will be far more expensive than even the massive government freebies being dolled out today.
“governments are not needed to create money and/or its value: take note of Bitcoin”
Government must exist to regulate commerce and protect the ownership of property. It does not matter if the currency is gold, government-backed notes, or bitcoin.
The problem is NOT government. The problem is corruption. During our lifetimes our government has been derelict of duty. Instead of protecting property rights it has engaged in theft. Instead of equitable regulations, politicians have created laws designed to enrich themselves, and consolidate and perpetuate power.
Conservatives must be educated and articulate enough to promote alternative solutions that work. Otherwise we will remain stuck with the status quo.
“I think a guaranteed income would simply compound the problem. There’s just too much evidence to show that would be the case.”
It might not be the best solution, however it is better than what we have now which are incentives to not work, have kids out of wedlock, fraud, etc.
In Kuwait it creates some problems, but ultimately, since everyone is getting paid, if you want to better yourself you have to get an education and work hard or smart or both.
If a universal income for citizens were implemented to REPLACE current handouts, most people would want to work because the amount would be too small to be comfortable. The idea is to cover bare essentials. No fine dining. No luxury homes. Just survival.
We know the effect of a minimum wage is to drive up the cost of living and squeeze the middle class. The effect of a universal income is the same. We can see that in Kuwait.
I don’t know if a universal income is viable. I do not know if it could or would work. However, I do think we need to distinguish it from socialism and communism.
If money is distributed to citizens that correlates to taxes, levies, etc. on intellectual property, then this falls well within the realm of conservatism. And it might work.
The whole idea of the government granting a limited monopoly to inventors is to encourage innovation for everyone’s benefit. Since citizens are being deprived of natural rights in exchange for this Constitutional legal principle, it is quite justified for citizens to be compensated for these lost rights.
“That is an ad verecundiam argument, with respect to Musk.”
Not an appeal to authority. Appeal to common sense. Get advice from experts.
You are arguing that a armchair quarterback knows just as much about football as a pro.
When someone who has proven his ability to generate a sizable fortune, invests in a technology because he believes it is the future, it is not certain to pan out, but it is reasonable to put some confidence in a person’s expertise.
Unless you have similar credentials, I think his opinion carries more weight than yours (or mine). And futurism is not a scientifically or logically rigorous line of study. It falls more into the realm of probabilities, and educated guesses.
“standardization of road signs is not some kind of boon to drivers,”
You miss the point. We all drive on the right side of the road because it driving is regulated. And things like this are not regulated locally for obvious reasons. There are many “standards” and regulations that allow us to drive at high rates of speed with a reasonable confidence in our safety. The biggest risk on the roads is not poor road conditions but dangerous drivers who are not driving safely.
“Not to mention, the many attempts at internationalizing road signs make them even harder to figure out.”
Well I never said our government does a great job of what it is supposed to do. That does not mean that anarchy and chaos are preferable.
Since the article came out, €560 has dropped another three bucks to only $584. 20 January approaches.
The Finns coined the term "Molotov Cocktail". It was a drink designed to accompany Molotov bread baskets.
From the Wikipedia:
The name "Molotov cocktail" was coined by the Finns during the Winter War.[1] The name was an insulting reference to Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov, who was one of the architects of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact signed in late August 1939. The pact with Nazi Germany was widely mocked by the Finns, as was much of the propaganda Molotov produced to accompany the pact, including his declaration on Soviet state radio that bombing missions over Finland were actually airborne humanitarian food deliveries for their starving neighbours. The Finns sarcastically dubbed the Soviet cluster bombs "Molotov bread baskets" in reference to Molotov's propaganda broadcasts.[2] When the hand-held bottle firebomb was developed to attack Soviet tanks, the Finns called it the "Molotov cocktail", as "a drink to go with the food".[3]
The government must begin to withdraw from a whole series of programs that are outside its constitutional mandate—from social welfare programs, education, public power, agriculture, public housing, urban renewal and all the other activities that can be better performed by lower levels of government or by private institutions or by individuals.This is less “equitable” than more programs? I think not.
I do not suggest that the federal government drop all of these programs overnight. But I do suggest that we establish, by law, a rigid timetable for a staged withdrawal. We might provide, for example, for a ten-percent spending reduction each year in all of the fields in which federal participation is undesirable.
It is only through this kind of determined assault on the principle of unlimited government that American people will obtain relief from high taxes, and will start making progress toward regaining their freedom. …
— Chapter 7, “Taxes and Spending”, p. 66
False dilemma between socialism and anarchy. By all means, keep digging that hole deeper.
“You love dictating to ‘Conservatives’, do you not”
Keep fighting that straw man. It makes you feel like you’re winning.
“especially when proposing alternatives to socialism that are themselves inherently socialistic and federally conducted”
I support the reduction of federal government and its withdrawal from unconstitutional programs.
And I never advocated that we SHOULD have a universal basic income, just that it is not necessarily socialism.
It is ironic that during a time when ideological conservatism has been repudiated on a conservative forum in favor of Trump’s pragmatic conservatism, it is up to ideological conservatives such as myself to defend pragmatic ideas like universal basic income from the typical knee-jerk reactions that label it “socialism”.
Certainly It CAN be implemented socialistically, but not necessarily or essentially. Not everything can be categorized into a binary system, nor is it healthy or productive to attempt to do so.
You’re just wrong in your claim that a universal basic income is inherently socialism. I have already explained why, but you prefer to stop your ears and just keep repeating your error while lashing out for my disagreeing with you.
You might as well say that the founders were Communists since they supported robbing citizens of their natural rights in order to grant inventors and other innovators government-sanctioned monopolies on their inventions for the greater good and benefit of all.
You might as well say that bitcoin is socialism. Just because something doesn’t fit into your paradigm of “[t]he only viable solution” formula, does not make it socialism or communism.
As I said, I am an ideological conservative. That does not mean that if I can’t have everything my way I just want to take my marbles and go home. Sometimes we need to take a pragmatic approach. And your advocacy for greater and more rigorous means testing demonstrates that you are not there yet. You really have not thought that through. Because it is you who are actually advocating a socialistic approach.
Wealth is created by three things, and only three things: work, innovation, and the conversion of natural resources to energy (to be used for work). Everything else, economically speaking, is merely moving wealth from one place to another or consuming it.
If a government compensates innovation by granting limited monopolies, and this approach generates massive wealth to individuals and corporations who “own” the intellectual property protected by our laws and treaties, then it is neither unjust nor anti-conservative to compensate the citizens who were deprived of their natural rights by that government. And if this is the form that a universal basic income manifests itself, it is not socialism.
Look. You and I are ideologically aligned. We share the same basic political and economic views. But I am interjecting on this issue because I think it illustrates the heart of why conservatives fail to persuade many in the general voting population to accept a conservative approach. We have to be able to win the public debate for ANY of our ideas to matter. And we are not going to do that without being able to answer liberals with real-world, applied conservative solutions.
Do you plan to sit down at the grown up table and advocate the elimination of the Department of Transportation because the Constitution only granted Congress oversight of “Postal” roadways? Are you going to tell everyone that you are FOR Federal oversight of roads, but we need to fix the problem by amending the Constitution?
As an ideological and constitutional conservative, I may agree with you that there are constitutional issues with the department’s existence. However, debating this right now is not just a waste of time. The general public is NOT going to take us seriously if we get into such debates with liberals. They will just paint us (like they already do) as backwoods, closeted racists who want to return to our glory days of Paul Revere and slavery.
My position can win the argument with the liberal. Your position will be perceived as being that of a typical white guy who wants to take the food out of the mouths of starving babies just to satisfy your unbalanced sense of equity and justice.
They will be flabbergasted when I argue that we should get rid of means testing and quit making needy people jump through hoops. Streamline the programs and make them efficient. Get rid of red tape. I will explain how the liberals’ failed approach is robbing them and keeping them poor. The general population is going to be more receptive of conservative solutions that conservative ideology which may be wrongly perceived as having no compassion for the poor or helpless. Or it may be perceived as impractical because your position would be portrayed as trying to return us to horse and buggy days.
Where do I begin? EVERYTHING in your post is wrong.
“Means-tested socialism is still socialism and still the welfare state.”
You interjected in my conversation in post #53 in which I was pointing out that means testing is socialistic. When I argued AGAINST means testing, you took the opposing view. Now you are acting as if I am the one advocating means testing. Take time to comprehend the subject matter before you rail against something.
When the government gives out food and housing subsidies based on income, that is means testing. It is inherently socialistic. I pointed out how income or subsidies based on nothing but citizenship is not socialistic because the rich, poor, and middle-class are all treated equally. That IS what equitable means. It’s not just a nice-sounding word to support a position, nor is it one you can dismiss off-hand because you don’t like it.
“BTW, you deliberately misquoted me”
Are you clairvoyant? How would you know my intent IF I actually had misquoted you?
“I did not put the word conservatives in quotation marks.”
Yes. You did:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3510093/posts?page=74#74
“You expose yourself more and more when you do such things.”
It would help your case if you stuck to the subject instead of making false accusations.
“And please, enough with the tl;dr posts; try to be brief.”
The only wasted words are the ones you have ignored. You have quite a peculiar way of responding to posts you don’t like. You complain, not because of lack of supporting information and facts, but for too much.
Why bother engaging in conversation or debate if you want or intend to do your part of the listening? Your response is a bit one-sided AND lacking in substance.
Well, I apologize for the accusation of misquoting.
And perhaps I did miss your point, whatever it was. My position will remain that I stand with Goldwater’s assessment from his book when it comes to government programs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.