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
“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.