From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Perot and libertarians (was Re: THINK AND GROW RICH)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:00:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.180358.12468@kpc.com>,
emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.222011.6544@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr15.155125.17551@kpc.com>,
>>There is no such things as "free" air time.  Either the government
>>is going to have to reimburse broadcasters, presenting the same
>>problem as matching funds, or they will extort the time as a
>>condition for license renewal, that is, under threat of force.
>
>        The last time I checked, the air waves were owned by the
>public, and licensed to the broadcasters to serve the public's interest.
>The broacasters do not own them, and therefore, conditions could
>be  (and are) set at license renewal.

Some of us consider that it makes as much sense to have the
"public" own the air waves as it makes sense for the "public" to
own all the land in the U.S.  Both are without question finite
limited resources.  Both can be handled thru conventional concepts
of ownership based on original homesteading of the resource in
question.

>>Perot has made vague statements to the effect that American
>>businesses "shouldn't be able" to deal with foreign countries when
>>it's bad for our country.  He has opposed the free trade agreement
>>with Mexico on these sort of grounds.
>
>        This is news- do you mean, presently, I can deal with any
>country I want? And I've been avoiding Iraq and Libia for no good reason.

Perhaps I should have phrased that as "economically bad", but
personally I think you should be perfectly free to deal with Libia
and Iraq if you want to; just don't expect me to come to your rescue
when you get into trouble and don't be surprised if I make a point
of letting other people know the kind of people you're willing to do
business with.

>        He has apposed the NAFTA on the grounds that it would implode
>our tax base. Currently, American businesses can deal with Mexico,
>under the current trade agreements. He is not advocating shutting
>down all trade with Mexico.

In other words he thinks it is shouldn't be permitted because it
would be economically bad for us.  I happen to disagree with that
assessment.  Mexicans with more cash in their pockets are also a new
market for American goods.  Trade is two-way street.  Perot would
deny me the opportunity to test my view of things by outlawing the
activities involved.  This is no way to prove you support
free-trade.

>        By the way, what's the siginicance of the quotes around
>"shouldn't be able"?

It's as close to a quate as I can recall but I wouldn't stake my
life on it hence the "to the effect of".

>>
>>>>5. He has stated that he would run the country "like he ran EDS".
>>>>At EDS, it was forbidden to have a beard, there was a strict
>>>>conservative dress code, and you could get fired for having an
>>>>extramarital affair.
>>>>
>>>        When did he say he'd run it like EDS?
>>
>>I don't know that he's said "like EDS" specifically but he has
>>certainly said that the government needs to be run more like a
>>business and there is no reason to believe that he doesn't think
>>what was good for EDS's business isn't good for all business.
>>
>        ..But he's said nothing of instituting nation dress codes,
>no beard rules, or making Adultery a felony, as your original
>point tried to imply.

Actually that was someone else, I was just trying to explain how
someone could arrive at that conclusion from what's been said.

/June