From: Rex.Beard@f32.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Rex Beard)
Newsgroups: hsv.general
Subject: Re: Comparison of Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian Views
Date: Fri,  2 Oct 92 19:56:11 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/32

 JE> From: John.Emmert@f2.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Emmert)

 >>SHOULD YOUNG AMERICANS BE COMPELLED TO SERVE IN SOME CAPACITY IN THE 
 >>NAME OF
 >>"NATIONAL SERVICE"?
     
 >>Liberal: Yes, everyone has the obligation to serve others for social 
 >>welfare.
     
 >>Conserv: Yes, when it can be justified for national defense purposes.
     
 >>Lib'tar: No. Slavery is slavery regardless of whether it is masked by 
 >>the
 >>         euphemism "draft" or "national service".
     
 JE> Slavery? I don't think anyone had any idea of them doing it for 
 JE> free. Personally I'm in favor of emulating many of the european 

Slaves throughout history have been paid. They are ALLWAYS paid.
They are given clothing, shelter and food. but not freedom.

 JE> countries and forcing every citizen between the ages of 18 and 
 JE> 20 to perform some form of national service. Might not be a bad 
 JE> idea, especially if we include as part of the "pay" two years 
 JE> of higher education. 

 >>SHOULD THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BAIL OUT SAVINGS AND LOAN INSTITUTIONS AND 
 >>BANKS TO
 >>PREVENT THEIR COLLAPSE?
     
 JE> So instead we should allow an economic collapse as happened in 
 JE> the 30s? 

The Feds should never have insured the 100% of every investment
in every bank. THAT is what cause this mess. It encourage people
to put their money in the bank with the *highest* interest rate.
No one ever looked at the safet of those banks. We told them,
"Do whatever you want, if you screw up, we'll take care of you."

Guess what? They screwed up and BECAUSE, politics was involved this
was covered up and the whole mess got worse and worse. Far worse
than a free market would have allowed. Some banks would have failed.
They wouldn't have brought down the rest of the country with them.

 >>SHOULD THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HELP AMERICAN BUSINESSES THROUGH HARD 
 >>ECONOMIC
 >>TIMES WITH LOW INTEREST LOANS?
     
 JE> The government also benefits from these loans in other ways. It 
 JE> keeps taxpayers employed, and also keeps the business paying 

But it also keeps other tax payers *unemployed*. Where does it get the
money from?

 JE> taxes. In general I agree with you, overall the government 
 JE> shouldn't be in the business of financing failing businesses. 
 JE> Again, nothing is that simplistic. 

Politicians make bad businessmen. How is a political decission made on
*whom* to loan to? By politics. They do it for a million reasons.

NONE of which are economic reasons. The only way economics enters the
decision is if the voters think about it. But how many of the voters
*really* know enough about a particular business that they've only
heard about from the news? If at all?

So your saying that when a company can't find *anyone* among 5 billion
people in the world who is willing to loan enough of their *own* money
to a business, that the US government should make the loan?

-rex-
Vote Libertarian in '92


--  
 = Micro Magic, 830-2362,  Alabama's Usenet/Fidonet gateway.
 = Reply-To:  Rex.Beard@f32.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG