Unintended Conservatism*
the essential conservatism of a revolutionary economic proposal
Philosophically, I have no ideology. My preferred approach to governing the governance of society is ‘mutual respect in effecting choices’. It is non- ideological because it does not involve any secular belief(s). (Neither is it theological, involving any sacral belief(s).)
Yet, that approach to governing the governance of society calls for the establishment of a democratically distributed income. That certainly looks ideological — and not in any conservative way, at that.
That is to say, it would be an income for which any (adult) citizen of the nation could become eligible. Every adult citizen would be guaranteed access to an income (in an amount sufficient to live on, too, based on the current average or median income). Unemployment and poverty would be absolutely, positively eliminated (for adult citizens). Environmental sustainability would be systemically enhanced. [It is also important to emphasize that any nation could adopt this proposal.]
I doubt any of that strikes anyone as “conservative.” Yet, the proposal is.
The specific proposal I developed would fund that income without using taxes (or public debt) for that purpose. Now we’re getting on the ‘conservative’ track, right? Only, it would fund that income by creating money as needed for that purpose — not such a conservative idea. [To be clear, the proposal does include built-in protections against having too much money in the economy (which doesn’t sound ‘conservative’), but not by taking any money from any person or business before it could be used for purchases/investment (which does sound more conservative).]
The proposal does provide for possibly eliminating all taxes and public debt. Surely, its conservatism will now become evident — except, it would do that by funding government the same way that income would be funded: creating money as needed. Hmm.
So, what in tar nation makes this here idea ‘conservative’?
For one thing, the approach to justice from which this proposal follows does not take differences in income/wealth, no matter how large, to be in themselves an injustice. How differences in income/wealth arise is a concern of justice, but differences themselves are not.
It follows from that position that there need be no limit on income/wealth. Indeed, arbitrarily setting any limit on income or wealth would be unjust.
It also follows that redistributing income or wealth would be unjust. Since differences in those are not unjust, to alter the given outcomes cannot be justified. (To the extent that the ways those differences arise is a matter of justice, it is that which must be addressed, not differences themselves).
At the same time, this proposal eliminates unemployment and poverty without imposing any cost on any employer. It does involve a minimum pay, but that pay would not come from the revenues of employers. (As noted, the money for it would be created as needed.)
Finally, this proposal would accomplish what it would achieve for society without requiring anyone to act any particular way. Not one smidgeon of sacrifice or altruism or even concern for any other person would be required for society to obtain any or all of those outcomes. [To be fair, even (most) contemporary conservatives are not against those things, only against having them imposed on people through government — though they will ecstatically use government to impose on all people their ideas about how life should be lived.]
So, in a superficial way there is nothing conservative about this economic proposal. Its — guaranteed — outcomes for society are in actuality ‘progressive’ (in the generic sense of that term). Beneath the surface, though, it is very much conservative (in the classical meaning of that term).
A person might think that would mean that there would be no reason for this proposal to have any enemies. In the perverse world in which we humans do what we do, however, this proposal has no friends — at least, none that are known to be publicly advocating for it (other than its author, yours truly).
______________
*I feel it is necessary to define terms like “conservatism.” Here I use it in the more classical sense, not to denote what it has become contemporarily, which is nothing but people wholly besotted with the idea of — finally — totally defeating liberalism, which triumphed politically in the middle of the 1960’s and has been fighting a frustratingly (for them) effective rearguard action in its long political retreat since the middle of the 1970’s (thanks more than anything else to the staunch cultural liberalism of the pop culture/marketing complex).
for more about justice concerning income inequality: “Morality, ‘Real Justice’, and Income Inequality” (“ min read” here in Medium)
for more about mutual respect in effecting choices: “Can’t Get Any Simpler” (‘2 min read” here in Medium with links to more about it)
for more about the proposal itself: “A Most Beneficial Economic Change” (“2 min read” here in Medium with links to more about it)
Nothing I publish here in Medium is behind the paywall. It is all public domain.