In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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.

ROTFLMAO...

Why?

Guess I have truly never met such a "true liberal." Every liberal I
hear from is always looking to use more of my money to create
larger and more involved government programs to do ever more
for the "poor, unwashed public".

That's the same as what conservatives want - except that their definitions of
the "poor unwashed public" are different.

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.

As K2ASP pointed out, this was in the form of loan guarantees, not actual loans
to Chrysler. But the fact remains that if Chrysler had gone under the Feds
would have been on the hook for those loan guarantees.

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)

See how it's all in the definitions? Some would call the Chrysler bailout and
other
similar deals "corporate welfare". Others would say they were a smart move that
resulted in more jobs, more economic growth and more ROI for investors.

Take a good look at any of those government programs for the "poor unwashed
public"
and you'll see that most of them can be viewed either way.

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.

Not even very imperfectly.

Consider the old "ABC" scheme, though.

There were basically two levels of license back then - Class A, with all privs,
and Class B/C, who could not work 'phone on any HF band between 3 and 25 MHz.
(Class Bs and Cs could only work 'phone on 160, 11, 10 and VHF/UHF).

Both licenses required the same code tests. The Class A required the Class B
written *and* a more advanced written test that focused on theory, particularly
'phone techniques. Class A also required a year's experience as a Class B or C,
and the tests for Class A (all of them - code and theory) had to be passed in
front of an FCC examiner.

The philosophy (as I understand it) was that it took more technical knowledge
and practical know-how to put a 'phone transmitter on the air properly. So the
FCC required more tests and experience before a ham could use 'phone on the
most-crowded and longest-range phone ham bands then in use.

Of course there were all sorts of unintended consequences. Hams who had little
or no interest in 'phone had no reason to go for Class A. 160, 11 and 10 were
busy with Class B 'phone ops. The system worked a real hardship on hams who
lived a ways from an FCC exam point, too.

Buit maybe that sort of system is a starting point for what you're talking
about, Bill.

73 de Jim, N2EY