From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Perot and libertarians (was Re: THINK AND GROW RICH)
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:03:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.222011.6544@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.155125.17551@kpc.com>,
>emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>>In article <920414.2130298226@lacan.postmodern.com> mcb@lacan.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) writes:
>>>In the referenced article, c162-av@danube.Berkeley.EDU
>>>Neeraj, I'm afraid those two are pretty much mutually exclusive--
>>>While Perot may have some interesting ideas here and there, he is NOT
>>>a libertarian nor is he, to my mind, friendly to libertarian ideals.
>>>
>>>Specifically:
>>>1. He would escalate, not end, the so-called "War on Drugs" (War on
>>>Civil Liberties), and he speaks of police sweeps of minority
>>>neighborhoods, multi-agency raids, and "military" tactics.
>>>
>>        I have heard this, but have yet to see a quote where he
>>actually said this. The closest I've seen is a magazine reporter
>>paraphrasing. What is the exact quote? Allegedly, he said this
>>at a media round table. Everybody was probably taking notes.
>>Why hasn't anybody used his qote on this verbatim?
>
>Probably because at the time he made the statement he wasn't a
>perspective candidate for president.  The reference I aw to it
>refered to a 1990 biography on him but I haven't see the original
>source material (the biography) so I'm not sure if the author quotes
>or paraphrases him there.
>
>>        My guess is that he didn't say 'minority' and the
>>reporter read what he wanted to into what he said.
>
>Do you have evidence to base this assumption on or are you just
>trying to make the man match the image you'd like to have of him?
>

Unfortunately, I don't have any evidence, "otherwise", it would be a "guess".
But I do have a few points to back up my "guess", none of which having to do
with Perot's image:

   1)	Even though he wasn't running for president, he's been
  politically active throughout the '80s- working on education
  and the war on drugs. 

   2) If he had used a racially charged term
  like "minority neighborhoods", you can bet the public outcry
  would be enough to get him booted off all the comittees he
  was on. Even racists know to publically avoid these terms. 

   3) It's much more likely that he either made reference to one or
  more drug-infested neighborhoods that happen to have large minority
  populations, or the reporter made the assumption that "drug infested" =
  "minority neighborhood". 

>>>3. He would restrict political speech and the news media (limit
>>>campaigning, ban exit polls) and is not bothered by the apparent First
>>>Amendment issues.
>>>
>>        Both of these can be accomplished without limiting free speach.
>>For instance: in political campaigns:
>>        1) Matching federal funds only becomes effective after a certain date.
>>        2) Free air time (to reduce the amount of money needed to campaign)
>>           starts after a certain time.
>>        3) Work with the large parties to move their primaries/conventions
>>           closer to the election.
>
>The Supreme Court had already ruled that it is a violation of the
>first amendment to limit the amount of money a candidate may spend
>on his or her own campaign. If they hadn't it would not be legal for
>Perot to finance his own campaign with $100,000.  Libertarians, of
>course, also object to federal matching funds because they require
>people to finance political positions they don't agree with.
>Anyone who really wants to see a level playing field is free now to
>contribute equally to everyone running for a particular office.
>

	I said nothing of limiting campaign contributions. The point
I was making is that it's possible to shorten the time campaigns take
without treading on the constitution. 

>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. 

	Once again, I was trying to point out that changing the way
campaigns operate doesn't equate to trampling on the constitution.

>
>>>4. He would increase, not decrease, government intervention into the
>>>economy, under the guide of "management".  This would
>>>include restrictions/penalties on international transactions.
>>>
>>        Specifically, what restrictions or penalties?
>
>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.
	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. 
	By the way, what's the siginicance of the quotes around
"shouldn't be able"?

>
>>>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.