Conservatives Should Support Free University Education

As conservatives like to say, “If you subsidise something, you’ll get more of it; if you tax something, you’ll get less of it.”

Often it’s argued immigration is needed to fund government spending and to provide cheap labour. This is to say, our current system makes immigration profitable to the powers-that-be. Perhaps the solution to opposing immigration then is to socialise costs for the youngest, make immigration more costly for the powers-that-be. Grant free education, for example: not only public schooling but undergrad, graduate, even medical school. Infrastructure is also stressed by immigration, so a tax could be added here as well. Add these taxes to employers on a per employee basis while reducing the overall tax burden, so that employer taxes are linked with number of employees.

A direct increase in the minimum wage would accomplish the same thing. Yes, unemployment would result; but thwarting immigration is even more important.

In other words, perhaps the solution is to act nearly opposite to what conservatives have traditionally attempted. The justification could be that everyone deserves a fair start in life, and funding could come from a dramatic cut to “defence” spending (which could produce a budget surplus if deep enough.) Americans might be motivated to cut one source of spending (defence) if promised the reward of another source of spending (education).

Traditionally conservatives support “defence” spending and otherwise fiscal discipline. And traditionally conservatives lose. Perhaps “socialism” then is a more promising route.

Regarding the current benefits of immigration: The primary benefactors are employers who acquire cheap labour. Taxes are not increased much by immigration. The notorious Richwine study revealed: “[I]n 2010, the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories.” And since most immigrants have a low level of education, they are expected to consume more than is paid into government in the long-term, and likely in the near-term as well. So, immigrants are not supporting America’s tax burden much.

6 thoughts on “Conservatives Should Support Free University Education

  1. redphillips

    What I have wondered about these proposals is on what grounds do you make “community college” free, but not State U? Making CC free would essentially be an admission that our high schools have failed and we need a couple of more years to get kids a basic education. A lot of CCs are not at all selective. So doesn’t this penalize kids who are smart enough and worked hard enough to go to State U? If we are going to make any post secondary public schools free, I would suggest tech schools. Better a free education go to creating a diesel mechanic than an associates in English, no?


    1. weavercht Post author

      I’m just brainstorming. Perhaps we should support increasing the minimum wage as well, even though it does create unemployment.

      It just seems like we’ve had everything backwards for opposing immigration. It isn’t so important what is most efficient as what opposes immigration. The libertarians are right on many things, only their ideas result de facto in mass immigration.

      Bede used to argue here how socialist nations in Europe tend to receive fewer immigrants.


  2. hawthornecht

    The entire university/college system is a masking of mass unemployment. Ideally, in the current construct, corporations would ask for 4-8 years of service for an education-a modern apprenticeship, with meager returns, if room and board. More or less, what the mills provided children in New England during the 1800s early 1900s, before Southern Women decided they wanted those jobs and had a clever means to obtain them. Child Labor Bad.


  3. roho

    Most companies of any size in the fifties had 4 year apprenticeship programs for trade and craft. And some were awesome, recognized by Industrialist Leaders throughout the nation. Electricians, Welders, Machinist, etc, were not only cranked out, but were somewhat loyal to the company that provided the opportunity. But, larger, more profitable companies like the Steel Industry found it easier to steal that finished craftsman making $7.00 an hour, and pay him union wages at say $10.00 an hour instead of putting in their own apprenticeship program. Obviously, the smaller company was not going to increase their labor cost, and ended their apprenticeship program and started stealing employees as well…………Enter the 1964 Civil Rights Decree that forced all of US Manufacturing to place unskilled blacks on jobs that they could not do?…………………..That was the breaking point and wall street relocated offshore for cheaper labor. With the USSR in it’s death throws, the World Elitist were no longer worried that the Bolsheviks were coming to bayonet their children and steal their wealth, so they invented multinational companies and started over driving down wages.

    Over the next 50 years, Robotics will replace even school teachers and doctors. An even higher number of human workers will become useless eaters. What to do with them?…………Die of course………More wars and pandemics. The Elites actually believe that they can control artificial intelligence.


  4. weavercht Post author

    I just posted in comments at another site the following, thought I’d repost here:

    Really, I think Marx was right: Capitalism naturally leads to Communism or something similar. We certainly had private property before capitalism.

    Anyway, you might find the following essay interesting, quote:

    Surprising as it may seem to those who equate the
    collapse of communism with the failed ideas of The Communist
    Manifesto and Das Kapital, there was actually little connection
    between the two. Marx would certainly have applauded the Soviet Union going
    into the dustbin of history, as it exemplified all that he stood against — a
    corrupt oligarchy blocking the forces of production in their historic trek
    toward a Utopian withering away of the state.

    Karl Marx Revisited” by Jude Wanniski.

    I personally tend to view libertarians as very similar to communists (in the sense that both are ideologues). It’s traditionalists (race is also a tradition, a genetic tradition) who reject materialism, or at least who get in the way of the materialist power seekers. For capitalists, traditions can also get in the way of profit expansion, which is why they pave the way to socialism/communism: capitalists create the mass proletariat of atomised individuals who then revolt. Perhaps you’ve already heard this argument. Regardless, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your two posts.

    My motive is simply that we’ve continued to lose to the “Left”, because we’ve refused to play power politics. We instead tend to recite platitudes, utopian dreams. For example, neither of us would want a higher minimum wage in normal times, but under current society this can lead to decreased immigration. Because currently free trade and mass immigration create a race to the bottom, jobs ship overseas and cheap labour floods in to drive down wages. There’s no trickle down economics. So holding a higher minimum wage reduces the profit incentive for more immigration. In retrospect, we should have embraced a little socialism if we were trying to win. But we were never trying to win. We were instead only interested in preaching ideals. And so the Marxists are driving us into extinction.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s