From: John.Emmert@f2.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Emmert)
Newsgroups: hsv.general
Subject: Comparison of Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian Views
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 16:14:42 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/2 - Gateway, Huntsville AL

In a message of <Sep 30 19:09>, Lawrence Hughes (1:373/12) writes: 


 >SHOULD THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SEND TROOPS OR OTHER MILITARY AGENTS TO 
 >INTERVENE
 >IN THE AFFAIRS OF OTHER COUNTRIES?

 >Liberal: Yes, if it will advance the cause of human rights.

 >Conserv: Yes, if it will help contain the spread or resurgence of 
 >communism or
 >         protect other U.S. interests such as oil.

 >Lib'tar: No. The U.S. government has no authority to intervene 
 >militarily in
 >         the affairs of other countries except in response to a 
 >military attack
 >         on the American homeland.

Only when it is in our best interest to do so. Tripling the price of oil in 
a sudden and unexpected manner would be construed by most Americans as a 
military attack upon the US. We are dependant on imports (free trade, 
remember). Our dependance upon imports makes us vulnerable to what happens 
elsewhere in the world. Ignoring that fact makes us no more intelligent 
than the osterich that sticks his head in the sand. Like most simplistic 
viewpoints, the Libertarian idea has merit, and on the surface has many 
things going for it. Unfortunately, the world is not simple, and the US 
isn't the only country in the world. There is no one simple solution to all 
of our problems.

 >SHOULD THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SEND FOREIGN AID TO OTHER COUNTRIES?

 >Liberal: Yes. to help the poor in third world and developing countries 
 >which
 >         have good human rights records.

 >Conserv: Yes, to help those governments trying to resist communism or 
 >trying
 >         to convert from socialism to democracy.

 >Lib'tar: No. American taxpayers should not be forced to pay to support 
 >other
 >         governments at all.

We can't even support ourselves, much less half the world as we are 
attempting to do. I'm afraid that in most cases (MOST) I would agree with 
you here. We should only support other countries when it is our best 
interest to do so (with tangible benefits).

 >SHOULD THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE IN AND SUPPORT THE 
 >U.N.?

 >Liberal: Yes, because it is the last best hope for peace.

 >Conserv: Yes, but only if it will take a more pro-American stance.

 >Lib'tar: Not as presently constituted and financed by tax dollars. A 
 >         voluntarily financed forum for international discussions 
 >would not 
 >         be objectionable.

I think most Americans would agree with me when I answer yes to this.

 >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".

Slavery? I don't think anyone had any idea of them doing it for free. 
Personally I'm in favor of emulating many of the european countries and 
forcing every citizen between the ages of 18 and 20 to perform some form of 
national service. Might not be a bad idea, especially if we include as part 
of the "pay" two years of higher education.

 >SHOULD THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BAIL OUT SAVINGS AND LOAN INSTITUTIONS AND 
 >BANKS TO
 >PREVENT THEIR COLLAPSE?

 >Liberal: Yes, because all the depositors have depended on government 
 >deposit
 >         insurance to protect their savings.

 >Conserv: Yes, because if these financial institutions collapse, our 
 >entire
 >         economy will follow and it will be like the 1930's 
 >depression.

 >Lib'tar: No. Taxpayers should not be compelled to bail out either 
 >financial
 >         institutions or individuals who make bad investments.

So instead we should allow an economic collapse as happened in the 30s?

 >SHOULD THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HELP AMERICAN BUSINESSES THROUGH HARD 
 >ECONOMIC
 >TIMES WITH LOW INTEREST LOANS?

 >Liberal: Yes. This will save jobs and American workers need all the 
 >help they
 >         can get during a recession or depression.

 >Conserv: Yes. Government should help business to stay in business. 
 >That's free
 >         enterprise.

 >Lib'tar: No. Government can only help some businesses by stealing from 
 >         taxpayers and other businesses. No one has the right to be 
 >subsidized
 >         at the expense of others.

The government also benefits from these loans in other ways. It keeps 
taxpayers employed, and also keeps the business paying taxes. In general I 
agree with you, overall the government shouldn't be in the business of 
financing failing businesses. Again, nothing is that simplistic.





--  
 = Micro Magic, 830-2362,  Alabama's Usenet/Fidonet gateway.
 = Reply-To:  John.Emmert@f2.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Newsgroups: hsv.general