A Conservative Revolutionary Economic Proposal: How “Conservative”

By Stephen Yearwood
Guest Columnist

For some time, I have been developing a revolutionary economic proposal. Lydia Berglar at this newspaper has granted me space to present my proposal to my fellow citizens in this area, where I now reside, in a series of articles. Among other good things, this proposal would eradicate unemployment and poverty (for adult citizens of the nation)—without involving taxes/public debt. I want to start this series by relating how (surprisingly) conservative this proposal is. 

First, though, I should introduce myself. My name is Stephen Yearwood. I have lived in Georgia all my life (except for a year in Colorado when I was in the army), if mostly in Atlanta—which hardly counts as ‘Georgia’. I am not politically or culturally a conservative. I am not in Academia; I never have been, except as a student. For money I have done various (mostly ‘blue collar’) things. At 72, I am now (mostly) retired. 

I did earn a Master of Arts degree in economics along the way (Atlanta University: 1988), thanks to the G.I. Bill and an academic scholarship, after my first semester, from A.U. That included writing a scholarly Thesis. It was in the area of political economy, which is the intersection of economics and philosophy. (I actually attended Atlanta University because it was one of the few schools anywhere that offered a course in political economy—and right there in Atlanta.) My Thesis focused on money and distributive justice: specifically, the academic debate on the latter topic that followed the publication of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (1971). His book is generally considered to be an attempt to make the case for a liberal approach to the governance of a Liberal society, such as the U.S. (“Liberal” meaning one based on liberty and equality as the ‘twin pillars of justice’ for a just society). 

I had spent my twenties trying to convince myself to become a Marxist. In the end, I could not. For one thing, I could never see how doing away with private property would solve all of humanity’s material problems. More importantly, I could not see how doing away with private property could in itself create a more just society/world. 

Most importantly, Marx rejected any suggestion that justice is actually ‘a thing.’ I have always been convinced that it is. I think justice is something human beings need: in addition to the harm directly associated with any injustice, an absence of justice damages people psychologically. 

This proposal is an attempt to make the economy more just. Any and all other outcomes are in a very meaningful way beside the point. 

That in itself is a conservative position—as related by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974). According to Nozick, the (Liberal) ‘left’ seeks to define justice in terms of outcomes, whereas the (Liberal) ‘right’ seeks to define justice and accept whatever outcomes follow because they are just. (There are a ‘left’ and a ‘right’ that are outside of Liberalism.)  

Another fundamental divide between ‘left’ and ‘right’ concerns people’s attitudes towards differences in income/wealth. To be on the left is to hold the position that at some point differences in income/wealth are in themselves an injustice. That threshold varies greatly, but to be on the left is to hold that position. To be clear, this proposal implicitly accepts that no difference in income/wealth, however great it might be, is in itself an injustice. (Of course, how income/wealth is obtained can be a matter of justice for conservatives.) 

Another reason this proposal is conservative is that it retains the existing set of institutions via which the economy (the process of producing/acquiring goods/services) proceeds. That is, it does not require tearing down any part of the existing institutional structure. Some institutions, such as the Social Security Administration and the central bank (the Federal Reserve System, the ‘Fed’) would become obsolete or have their functions change (respectively), but the economic system itself would remain the same. 

In addition to not involving any redistribution of anything, this proposal refrains from imposing any cost on any employer or imposing any limit on income/wealth (to include profits and holdings of businesses). All of that is definitely ‘conservative’. 

Finally, this proposal does not require people to act any particular way. It can be argued whether that is a uniquely conservative position, but there it is, all the same. 

So I hope I have convinced anyone still reading how ‘conservative’ this economic proposal is. I like to say that it is revolutionary, but not radical. It would transform the outcomes for society of the existing economic system, but it would leave that system intact. 

Making the economy more just will be the topic of Part II of the series.