In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Personally I think good true conservative idea is to allow people on
the air with no licencing requirements whatsoever, then cull out the
ones that violate the rules.

Wrong. A true conservative desires the least practical government
intervention in life.

A true liberal desires the least practical government intervention in life as
well.

The devil is in the details of what "least practical government intervention"
really means.

Just one example: The government used tax dollars to rescue Chrysler about 20
years ago. It turned out to be a good gamble because Chrysler paid back all of
the money with interest, and in the end it cost the taxpayers nothing.

Now - was the bailout a "liberal" move to save workers' jobs and try to manage
the economy? Some "conservatives" would say that companies that get in trouble
should be allowed to fail in a 'free market' and not propped up with tax
dollars.

OTOH, was the bailout a "conservative" move to save investors' money? Or to
give some help to an industry bedeviled with safety, pollution and economy
regulations *and* the double whammy of foreign competiton and two oil crises?

Some "liberals" would say that Big Business should not be propped up with tax
dollars. (Ma's Diner wouldn't get such a bailout)

Clearly a "free-for-all" no license approach
to ham radio wouldn't cut it and, as such, I and other conservative
minded individuals do support ham licensing.

Most "conservatives", anyway. The exact same is said by most "liberals".

Where we depart from
the current approach is in the recognition that the "incentives" of
today's licensing do NOT dovetail with the knowledge needed
to pass the higher level license exams.

Not perfectly, anyway.

73 es HNY de Jim, N2EY