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 15:37:44 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 THERE BE CONSCRIPTION, A DRAFT, FOR MILTARY PURPOSES?

 >Liberal: Yes, but not in peace time.

 >Conserv: Yes, America must always be strong to deter potential enemies 
 >and
 >         young people need it to learn patriotism.

 >Lib'tar: Absolutely not, under any circumstances. The draft is 
 >slavery.
 >         Slaves make poor defenders of freedom.

The point isn't an issue, since there hasn't been a draft in quite a while. 
If we need a draft to defend our country, then we should have one (IMO).


 >SHOULD GOVERNMENT OWN OR CONTROL NEWSPAPERS, RADIO OR TELEVISION?

 >Liberal: Yes. We need PBS to make sure there is some high quality 
 >programming
 >         and government should control advertising aimed at children 
 >and other
 >         gullible people.

 >Conserv: Government should not own the press or TV, but should control 
 >it to
 >         prevent obscene programs and to ensure balanced reporting by 
 >the
 >         liberal dominated media.

 >Lib'tar: No. Government ownership or control of press or electronic 
 >media has
 >         no place in a free society. Owners of papers and broadcasters 
 >should
 >         be responsible for what they they publish. Let parents and 
 >other
 >         consumers be responsible for what to allow into their homes.

What about radio free europe? If the government can be competitive in the 
broadcast arena with commercial enterprises, why not? I for one would be 
upset if an X-rated broadcast station started operation in our town. You 
imply with the libertarians shuch would not only be allowed, but 
encouraged.

 >SHOULD GOVERNMENT REGULATE ANY SEXUAL ACTIVITY OF CONSENTING ADULTS, 
 >INCLUDING
 >PROSTITUTION?

 >Liberal: Generally not. But, if prostitution were legal, it should be 
 >regulated
 >         to protect public health.

 >Conserv: Yes. Prostitution, homosexuality, adultry and fornication 
 >should all
 >         be illegal because they destroy family values.

 >Lib'tar: No. Sexual activity involving consenting adults violates the 
 >rights
 >         of no other person. The right of adults to make their own 
 >decisions
 >         in this most private area must be respected.

Mandatory testing of prostitutes would be in the best interest of the 
public, since our insurance rates would skyrocket with the increased number 
of STD cases without it.

 >SHOULD DRUGS LIKE MARIJUANA, CONCAINE AND HEROIN BE LEGALIZED?

 >Liberal: A qualified yes. Start slowly, perhaps with marijuana first, 
 >but the
 >         production and sale should be regulated and taxed. Tax money 
 >should
 >         be used for drug treatment programs.

 >Conserv: NO! Are you nuts? Everyone knows that everything bad in the 
 >world is
 >         caused by drugs, dope dealers and stoned out gangs. What we 
 >need is
 >         stricter laws and more prisons.

 >Lib'tar: Yes. Peaceful drug use violates no other person's rights. 
 >People have
 >         the right to control their own bodies. The drug laws support 
 >organized
 >         crime, cause more crime, corrupt law enforcement, destroy 
 >rights and
 >         DO NOT WORK!

Here we agree. Organized crime is built upon the money earned from drug 
sales and prostitution. Legalize both and use the increased tax revenues to 
finance education programs and drug rehabilitation programs. The police as 
a consequence would have more time and money to concentrate on real crimes, 
and the crimes that affect the average citizen the most often would drop 
dramatically.

 >SHOULD IT BE LEGAL FOR PEOPLE TO TRAVEL OR MOVE INTO AND OUT OF THE 
 >U.S.
 >WITHOUT LIMITATION?

 >Liberal: We should give more help to people trying to escape poverty 
 >and
 >         political oppression so they can come to America, but not 
 >without
 >         limitation because they take jobs from Americans.

 >Conserv: No. We have too many immigrants already. Everyone will want 
 >to come
 >         to America. They increase welfare costs, take our jobs, 
 >increase crime
 >         and disease, and refuse to learn English.

 >Lib'tar: Yes. All individuals have the same rights, regardless of 
 >where they
 >         were born or where they live right now. Anyone willing to 
 >take
 >         responsibility for himself or herself has the right to travel 
 >and
 >         seek opportunity, including across international borders. 
 >America
 >         has always benefitted from immigrants who arrive with 
 >nothing, work
 >         hard, start businesses, become educated and improve America's 
 >         economy.

Sooner or later we will have every economic refugee in the world. People 
are starving in Africa for the simple reason that there are more people 
than the land in a particular area can support. I wouldn't like to see that 
happen here. We have enough problems taking care of our own as it is, let's 
solve our problems before we concentrate on everyone elses problems.

More next message.



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