HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whitlock@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Reid E. Whitlock)
Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships? (anon post for Alan Hardy)
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:45:07 GMT

In article <mary.714960472@ossi.com> mary@ossi.com (Mary Seabrook) writes:
>From: mary@ossi.com (Mary Seabrook)
>Subject: Re: why *seek* (additional) relationships? (anon post for Alan Hardy)
>Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:07:52 GMT

>>Muffy writes:
>>>Alan Hardy writes:
>>>I've only ever heard four (now five) people express this sentiment
>>>before, and all four were attractive, personable women in
>>>male-dominated professions.  They apparently believed that one doesn't
>>>need to make an active effort to look for potential partners---you
>>>just run into them all the time.

>>Well, I do not think that this describes me very accurately.  I am
>>indeed in a male-dominated profession, but that's about it.

>Humm, I think you are putting yourself down unnecessarily there, Muffy.
>I have rather vivid recollections of how difficult it was to have 
>a conversation with any of the males at the Anaheim USENIX conference dinner
>two years ago. It got worse when I mentioned that yes, I was aquainted with
>that stunning person over there. Attractive is definately appropriate.

>Mary

>(BTW, I am also in the number of - look for a relationship? why? they just
>happen if you keep enjoying life.)
>--
>mary@ossi.com
>+1 510 652 6200 x 124

Maybe there is a distinction between "looking" and merely "keeping one's 
antennae up" for new and interesting opportunities. Even this second 
category can be subdivided into degrees of agressive "scouting" (which is 
still short of "hunting"). I would say that even when I am in one 
relationship, I always keep my antennae up, and will be agressive to the 
point of establishing the interest and status (single, attached, poly, 
etc..) , but that's about it. This means that someone has to cross my path 
in the first place or the antennae have nothing to detect. I definitely 
don't cruise. 

Reid
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1100 soc.couples:3715
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Implied sexual obligations of monogamy
Date: 28 Aug 1992 19:50:12 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Aug27.204246.13550@bcrka451.bnr.ca> bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth) writes:
>To you it may be a fact... but if by chance it's seen by the other person
>as a threat, then coercion enters the playing field.  I don't disagree that
>you should state how you feel, but in stating it, you may make the other
>person feel like they are being coerced.  Whether or not you're trying to
>coerce that person, if they feel it then it exists.  N'est pas?
---
	But -- and here is a semantic point -- does the fact that the
other person may perceive it as coercion mean that _I_ am being 
coercive?  Or do _I_ have to have intent to be manipulative.  If
I am stating my needs and this doesn't work for the other person, then
I can't see it being the right course of action for me not to 
relate my needs.


>> 	In any event -- this is where monogamous relationships seem more
>> unstable/unsatisfying than non.  If you have more people you can
>> address to meet your needs, it seems the configuration of people would
>> be more stable.
>
>Things could be just as stable in a monogamous relationship, if you picked
>someone that truly addressed your needs.  There's plenty of happy, stable
>monogamous relationships out there.
---
	True -- but finding 1 person that satisfies all my needs may be
more difficult than if I have more than 1 person around.  I've often
thought that the best person for myself would be myself -- but I haven't
found a way to produce a female clone of myself yet...  I'm pretty
unique.  


william
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has already been posted)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:03:48 GMT

In article <10260017@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)  
writes:
> Indeed, with the caveat that in the past business leaders sometimes
> did things like using prison labor to break strikes and drive down
> labor costs.  Sometimes business has to be prevented for certain
> actions, in my opinion, even to preserve the idea of a free market.
> 
> One of the things that keeps me from endorsing libertarianism is the
> fact that a lot of discourse I see from net.libertarians seems to
> deny the very real fact that it is entirely legitimate for people
> to worry abous sytemic methods (checks and balances) that can
> be used to prevent injustice and the perception of injustice.
> 

Except for those who espouse anarcho-liberalism, libertarians _do_ support  
checks and balances by government. Every time I read a rebuttal to  
libertarianism the example given involved someone using force directly or  
through government intervention. Both of which are anathema to libertarians  
(but not to statists). Invariably, the argument assumes that those dirty  
capitalists will gain control of the government and subjugate everyone. This  
seems to be some religious credo of the left since I have seen no proof that  
this scenario is will happen under libertarianism. There is proof that the  
socialists utopias supported by the statists invariably wind up with a ruling  
elite that does exactly what they say the libertarian will do.

 
--
Barry Wise
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has already been posted)
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:57:34 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <fulton.715618535@silver> fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
>From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
>Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has already been posted)
>Date: 4 Sep 92 14:55:35 GMT

>In <1992Sep4.130348.7850@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:

>>(but not to statists). Invariably, the argument assumes that those dirty  
>>capitalists will gain control of the government and subjugate everyone. This  
>>seems to be some religious credo of the left since I have seen no proof that  
>>this scenario is will happen under libertarianism.

>How about the United States Government?  Leaving aside the bit about "dirty
>capitalists", a government that was created under essentially Libertarian
>ideals has in fact degenerated into statist subjugation.  Isn't this an
>example of this scenario?

>-- 
>ben
>fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
>"Get the hell out of my way!" - John Galt

But many libertarians would probably take the Randian line here and say 
that it was the early government controls on business (made possible through 
stretched interpretations by the SC of the interstate commerce clause in the 
Constitution and the later influence of Keynsian economic theory and Fabian 
socialist thought) which is to blame, and that if the government had 
maintained a separation of commerce and state similar to that maintained 
between church and state, we would never have arrived at the mixed economy. 
I'd have to agree with Rand about this: It is probably true to say that the 
pure free-market system [i.e. laisse-faire capitalism] has never been tried--
not in America. 






------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has already been posted)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:55:35 GMT

In <1992Sep4.130348.7850@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:

>(but not to statists). Invariably, the argument assumes that those dirty  
>capitalists will gain control of the government and subjugate everyone. This  
>seems to be some religious credo of the left since I have seen no proof that  
>this scenario is will happen under libertarianism.

How about the United States Government?  Leaving aside the bit about "dirty
capitalists", a government that was created under essentially Libertarian
ideals has in fact degenerated into statist subjugation.  Isn't this an
example of this scenario?

-- 
ben
fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
"Get the hell out of my way!" - John Galt
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Why waste your vote?
Date: 28 Aug 1992 15:05:27 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

>I agree, of course.  But we're just preaching to the choir, here.
>The theoretical arguments against wasting your vote on the lesser 
>of two evils are all well and good, but I'd like to add a practical 
>consideration for use in convincing others to vote for an alternative,
>rather than restricting the choice to the two "favorites".  

I can't sing so I guess I'm not in the choir. I look at voting as maximizing 
expected value. To me this rational whereas talking about the evil of picking one
of the lesser of two evils is irrational.

If I perceive a significant difference between candidate X and Y, which I do
in the presidential election, then it makes sense for me to minimize loss
and maximize gain.

Now when I perceive no difference between the candidates, as in a race here
in california between a very liberal Barbara Boxer and her foe, whose
name I can't remember, but who is on the radical right, I won't vote for
either of them as there will be no appreciable difference in outcomes.


Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has already been posted)
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:29:17 GMT


To Jim's excellent short list of free-market books, I would like to
add Dr. George Reisman's _The Government Against the Economy_.
Although written in 1979 as an argument against price controls, the
arguments are still perfectly valid, and even topical: 

For example, they provide a refutation of the view that "profiteering"
in the Hurricane Andrew disaster areas in a bad thing; if free market
principles were allowed to operate, the fact that a bag of ice could
sell for $5 would be an incentive for every icemaker in America
(including, probably, my home freezer) to start making ice for
shipment to Florida.  With supplies flooding in from around the
country, the price would soon drop through normal competition until it
simply equalled the old price plus costs of transportation.  High
prices, in essence, send out the clearest sign of distress in such a
situation and simultaneously guarantee that the need will be met.
Instead, Florida citizens, apparently of their own choice, prefer to
wait for days for the government to swing into action, then wait in
line for hours for the free dole out the back of a government van.  (I
say "of their own choice" because there is apparently no shortage of
people willing to file "profiteering" complaints, and other people
willing to prosecute them.)  I doubt that Floridians are any different
(in the aggregate) from any other of their fellow Americans in this
regard.  We seem to be losing the free-market orientation to a petty
envy-based set of laws which punish entrepreneurship :-(.

For those who care, Reisman is currently working on a large book that
will be his _Human Action_.  I expect it to be more general than
_Government Against the Economy_, although there is promised an entire
chapter on the contemporary topic of environmentlaism, which Reisman
calls nothing less than an attempt to undo the Industrial Revolution.
Until it's published, GAE does a good job of presenting the arguments.

Alan

P.S.  I have no financial interest in any of Dr. Reisman's books.
From: kpt@IISA.COM (Kevin P. Tyson)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: The Bust Book
Summary: Looking for an updated copy of The Bust Book
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:44:45 GMT
Reply-To: kpt@iisa.com
Organization: IISA
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v5

There was a booked titled, ``The Bust Book'' written in the
1960s. It was directed towards activists and offered practical
advice for handling confrontations with the police.  Given
recent changes in the legal landscape such as civil forfeiture,
I was wondering if an updated copy of this book, or perhaps
some other work along the same lines, is available?

Thanks in advance,
Kevin P. Tyson
(kpt@iisa.com)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Subject: Environment / Suing for pollution
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:29:05 GMT

I'm looking for information regarding Libertarian solutions to real-world
pollution problems.  That is to say, problems like Superfund sites and
air pollution in areas where it is not clear who is doing the pollution.
I`ve looked at think.com, but I couldn`t glean anything from the titles
of the text files.  Any help would be appreciated.

-- 
ben
fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
"Get the hell out of my way!" - John Galt
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Environment / Suing for pollution
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 21:29:17 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>I'm looking for information regarding Libertarian solutions to real-world
>pollution problems.  That is to say, problems like Superfund sites and
>air pollution in areas where it is not clear who is doing the pollution.
>I`ve looked at think.com, but I couldn`t glean anything from the titles
>of the text files.  Any help would be appreciated.
>
>-- 
>ben
>fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
>"Get the hell out of my way!" - John Galt

From the Index on Liberty (distributed by the International Society
for Individual Liberty, 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102, USA,
71034.2711@compuserve.com, 415-864-0952):

    Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
    "a research institute committed to building a society of free
    and responsible individuals in their relations with one another
    and the environment."  Newsletter:  FREE Perspectives.
    P.O. Box 330, Dallas, TX 95275, USA (214)373-1776

    Political Economy Research Center
    Similar to FREE; "specializes in free-market approaches to natural
    resource policy.  Publications and conferences."
    502 S. 19th Ave, Ste 211, Bozeman, MT 59715, USA (406)587-9591


ISIL also sells books by mail order.  You could phone or email them to
find out which ones (several do) cover the area you inquire about.

Cheerio.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: johnb@corp.sun.com (John Benninghoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has already been posted)
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:53:15 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: barfly.corp.sun.com

In article <BtuwCz.2xH@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>
>>In a free society, however, there would be no laws against minorities
>>starting their own businesses.
>
>How easy is it to start one's own business that would cater for
>minorities, in an environment where discrimination of this form
>exists?  [Obviously not impossible; the majority doesn't want the
>minority to die off altogether.  They just don't want them to
>prosper.]

But there is no way to prevent them from prospering and I haven't seen
any demonstration that its possible.  Also in this regional case, outside
investors are free to invest.

As a side note the new business should cater to both minorities and the 
majority else they are guilty of the same bias in reverse and help
perpetuate the problem.

/jb
From: c3q@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Television conspiracy
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:29:06 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Cornell University



The argument that the "big-business/fascist/communi(st/tarian) machine" is
doing these things is hard to refute- the facts are out there.  The argument
that it is a concious conspiracy is much harder to prove- I've never seen any
evidence linking the Kennedy's with the Moral Majority and CNN.  Many of their
aims, while intended for wildly different purposes, happen to overlap.  This
added to the fact that these groups have much more power than the
freedom-loving/de-centralist groups (LP, etc.) may make it seem that the forces
of oppression are a single monolithic power, but closer analysis shows that
they are instead competing enemies.  It is only through their size, power, and
methods of operation that they seem united.  An ant who's hill is being crushed
by two humans may think that he is confronted with a united enemy, while in
fact the humans are fighting each other, and merely crushing the ant hill out
of carelessness and ignorance.  Perhaps both of the humans independantly dislik
e the ant, and are adding in a bit of ant-hill kicking, but this still doesn't 
mean that they are united.

In the end, though, the motives of the humans don't really matter all that much
to the ant; his hill is still getting crushed.


Call me a cynic,

-Travis J.I. Corcoran
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Free market stuff (pardon if this has already been posted)
Date: 30 Aug 92 18:09:32 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.


>But all too recent history proves that it's not true. The reality of the
>South in the 1950s is that there often was no one else that would sell to
>Blacks.  
>
>: "white monkeys" in my store. Now, if no one will sell to you, then you
>: have a reason for complaint.
>: 
>But under libertarianism, there would be no one to complain to, and no 
>mechanism for complaining.  And that's exactly why libertarianism, while 
>wonderful in theory, would in reality be a nightmare for minorities.  

In a free society, however, there would be no laws against minorities
starting their own businesses. These businesses could deal with whomever
they wished, also. Don't make the mistake of thinking that a free
society entails a necessarily easy life. A free society is a society
where people deal with one another on a voluntary basis--"free" means
free from force. It does not mean everything is wonderful and life is fair.

In an unfree society, the government can however stack the cards in 
favor of any special interest group with political pull...

Anyone who sanctions this activity cannot complain when the cards
are stacked against that person.

On the discussions concerning the free market...

A free market is a self-adjusting system which operates by the law
of supply and demand. This means that prices are SUBJECTIVE. Wages
are merely the prices of labor, and will vary from place to place.
However, there is a tendency for prices of the same goods to equalize
within the market.

Anyone who honestly wants to understand a free market system, as opposed
to those who merely want to complain about the iniquites of life, should
read material written by free market economists:

"Economics in One Lesson," by Henryy Hazlitt. (In depth discussion on 
the consequences of goverment interference with supply and demand)

"Man vs. the Welfare State," by Henry Hazlitt.

"Human Action," by Ludwig von Mises. (I recommend this as a starter)

There are obviously more, but these are excellent starters.

Hazlitt also wrote a book entitled "The Inflation Crisis, and 
how to resolve it." Anyone who would like to understand    
inflation as a purposeful, hidden tax on savings by the government,
should read this also. Our economy is run by the owners of the Federal
Reserve, not the fully by the law of supply and demand. Our current 
recession is a result of the boom of the eighties, which was a result
of the Federal Reserve inflating the currency from $400 billion to 
$800 billion.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
University of Florida

Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Subject: Re: Free market stuff ...
Reply-To: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Lab
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 02:10:11 GMT

In article <BtuwCz.2xH@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

|> saying the rich and the poor are equally free to sleep under bridges
|> (or however that quote goes).

	The law ... in its majesty ... prohibits the rich man as well as
	the poor from sleeping under bridges.

						--Anatole France
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:44:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has already been posted)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

In alt.individualism, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

> 
> 
> A free market is a self-adjusting system which operates by the law
> of supply and demand. This means that prices are SUBJECTIVE. Wages
> are merely the prices of labor, and will vary from place to place.
> However, there is a tendency for prices of the same goods to equalize
> within the market.

Indeed, with the caveat that in the past business leaders sometimes
did things like using prison labor to break strikes and drive down
labor costs.  Sometimes business has to be prevented for certain
actions, in my opinion, even to preserve the idea of a free market.

> 
> Anyone who honestly wants to understand a free market system, as opposed
> to those who merely want to complain about the iniquites of life, should
> read material written by free market economists:

One of the things that keeps me from endorsing libertarianism is the
fact that a lot of discourse I see from net.libertarians seems to
deny the very real fact that it is entirely legitimate for people
to worry abous sytemic methods (checks and balances) that can
be used to prevent injustice and the perception of injustice.

> 
doug