The far right in this country have driven home their stupid Ayn Rand message and too many people have listened. We now have the most polarized government since the Civil War.
The right believe that their way is the only way. To them everything is a zero sum game.
I would settle for a Scandinavian or Swiss-style system. The older I get, the less I like capitalism as described by the right.
- Make college tuition tax deductible
- Don't tax SS income
- Don't tax tips
- Bar surveillance of protests
- Make sure members have time to read legislation
Most everyone I've met thinks these are good ideas.
Anyway, what was inspired by a man that wanted to keep taxes and government power in check was commandeered by low class opportunist like Palin and other neo-cons. This was helped along by the press. The neolib side like MSNBC and the neocon side like Fox News were all to happy to reshape the message. They did this because at the end of the day, neither of these groups liked what the Tea Party originally stood for...less federal government power.
Still, you're point stands. I believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand and I think Ayn Rand's concept of good intentions with unintended consequences can and does lead to disaster. Though, dismissing them as stupid is a little childish.
Full list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_b...
Class warriors believe in zero-sum games. Wealth inequality to them means that if the rich are getting richer, then everyone else must be getting poorer; never mind that living standards have been improving for virtually everyone over the last 50 years (stagnant in closed societies, but those are far and few).
Also, please don't use terms like "far right". It could mean Ayn Rand or Hitler, and they don't have a thing in common.
(1) Collecting the money used, and (2) And choosing how to spend money for the benefit of the beneficiaries.
Both basic income and traditional welfare rely on government for #1, true. The difference is in #2.
Yes, it is.
> Lots of libertarians (including Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek) support basic income as a more efficient safety net than government-run programs.
Well, first, "libertarian" says nothing about left vs. right. "Lots of libertarians support one side of the issue" doesn't mean it doesn't split left vs. right.
Second, neither Milton Friedman nor Friedrich Hayek can be counted as current supporters of, well, anything.
To be fair, the left feel this way too.
Both sides compromise, but only when they think they are getting the better deal. There are moderates on both sides who get things done, and there are extremists on both sides that stifle progress. One side is not better at compromise than the other, in any regard. They are all politicians, and they are all motivated by the same thing: power and self fulfillment.