HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The Larger Picture (was Re: Gold Standard? No!)
Date: 15 Dec 1992 22:59:52 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36
Keywords: Gold, zealot, oil

In article <BzBIG1.I4p@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>One catch.  Did you have to pay income tax on your gains in holding the
>foreign currency over the national currency?

I don't know if Ecuador has an income tax.  While I was there, the Sucre
(their unit) changed from 200/dollar to 400/dollar.

Why shouldn't a capital gain in any commodity or posession be taxable
if that is what the social contract specifies?  (Leave aside for the
moment whether it is economically wise to.)

And even if the gain is an artifact due to inflation, the tax is then
essentially a tax on property rather than income, another possibility
encompassed by the social contract.

Minarchists and anarcho-capitalists still have to face the same problem of
deciding who pays how much for government services.  Those with more
property to defend will have to pay more than those who have less.  Thus,
you return to fees based on income or property.

Mike Huben

"Historians will have to face the fact that natural selection determined the
evolution of cultures in the same manner as it did that of species."
Konrad Lorenz in "On Agression" 1966.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Date: 16 Dec 1992 00:50:17 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1g2lioINN704@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

> And isn't it funny
> that with (as you say) no built-in feedback mechanism, government waste
> hasn't pegged the meter in 200 years?

Ha ha ha!  To assume there is a peg!
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,osu.opinion.libertarian,osu.opinion,alt.politics.marrou,cmh.opinion,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 16:06:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.073341.7826@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>In article <1992Dec4.223921.24193@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlfidler@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael L Fidler Jr) writes:
>
>>**Of the 162 check bouncers that ran for re-election only 14 lost their seats.
>
>How many of them were actually check bouncers?  I doubt many if any.
>They just used their bank's overdraft protection.  I have been known to
>have used my credit union's overdraft protection also.  Big deal!
>
The "Big deal" is that, while not technically illegal, these actions
contained "the appearance of impropriety" an argument which many of these
self-same CongressRodents used to great effect against the incumbent
Republican administration. Remember John Sununu and his flying about
in military jets? There's more than just a smidgen of hypocrisy evident
here. Most people didn't criticize this for any potential illegality,
rather for the fact that if they tried something on this scale with
their personal banks they would have been fined heavily. Personally,
I resented the fact that many of these pious politicians, while decrying
the state of the Deficit and the Economy, could not seem to manage their
personal finances to save their lives. Just another example of the 
ridiculous perks which Congress keeps granting unto itself.

*******************************************************************************
* "Bill Clinton is a sandwich I didn't order" - Zippy the Republican          *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
From: at15+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew Lewis Tepper)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Labor Standard
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:29:18 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Try this thought experiment:

Fix the currency at 1 unit=1 hour of unskilled labor. To keep the system
honest, the way to produce currency is to have an actual person do 1
hour of labor (either needed labor or unneeded), and then to give him a
newly minted currency unit. This isn't as crazy as it sounds: We now
have people dig up gold from the ground and then (investors) just hold
on to it. Also, we would have no limits on currency in circulation;
anyone could do some unskilled labor and get currency from the
government. One side effect would be that an implicit minimum wage would
be in effect: 1 unit = 1 hour. What other side effects would this scheme
have?

More thought experiments to follow...

Andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Seat Belt Laws
Date: 15 Dec 1992 23:38:24 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1g5h6mINNmen@spock.usc.edu>, cbehre@spock.usc.edu (Charles Behre) writes:

> My question is how sound is this lower insurance costs for everyone
> argument? ...does the lowering
> of insurance costs argument hold up or does it fall apart with further
> investigation.

It's bullshit.

Massachusetts had a mandatory seat belt law for a time, foisted upon us
by our so-called "representatives," before a binding initiative referendum 
clapped them soundly on the ears and indicated to them that their time
would be better spent on important issues.

Insurance rates went up the year the seat belt law became effective.
They also went up the year it was defeated.  In fact, they have gone
up every year for at least the past 15, and at a steadily increasing
rate.

What's really happening here is federal blackmail.  States are scheduled
to lose some amount of money in federal highway funds if they have not
succeeded in forcing a mandatory selt-belt law on their citizens by some
year (1994?)  Your safety is the last thing on your state legislators'
little minds.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:28:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.110831.18508@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.175350.24565@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>}	As for the woman's concerns being trivial, I hope thats not the
>}reason, especially since the platform does tend to take an antogonistic
>}position on lots of woman's issues.  
>
>Like what?
>
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>
	Well to name a few off the of my head:
1)  Woman in combat.
2)  Woman and the draft, the platform does oppose the draft; but it should
say "repeal the draft, that failling have woman participate fully".
3)  All laws currently protected the sick apply to the pregnant.
4)  Sexual harrasment, being defined as an innitiation of force, would be
compatable with libertarianism.
5)  Strong penalties for rape.  The Republicans (believe it or not) are the
only ones who have gotten behind this.
6)  Unequal laws with regard to dress codes on public property (the whole
topless NY. debate).
7)  The ERA.
8)  Insist that military make some of its combat equipment usable by
your average woman.  For example many planes are designed so that piolet
can be optimum height plus or minus 2".  Set the optimum height on one one
of the planes (say the A-10) to 5'3".
9)  Have UN sanctions regarding violations of human rights abroad apply to
crimes against woman (for example female circumcision).
10)  Have all civil rights legislation apply to woman until repealed.
11)  Ban state agencies from regulating abortion.
12)  Consider birth control with all other devices for purposes fo insurance.
13)  Ban premarital agreements.  Sounds much less libertarian than it is,
just define marriage more traditionally as a total joining of two people. 
then you can't sign any contract with regard to your spouse any more than
you could with regard to your left leg.
14)  end no force divorce.
	I could probably think of others, but you get the drift.

--JMB

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,osu.opinion.libertarian,osu.opinion,alt.politics.marrou,cmh.opinion,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 10:25:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.181054.14310@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.160618.5932@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> Bakayaroo Banzai,
>k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE writes:
>>The "Big deal" is that, while not technically illegal, these actions
>>contained "the appearance of impropriety" an argument which many of these
>>self-same CongressRodents used to great effect against the incumbent
>>Republican administration. Remember John Sununu and his flying about
>>in military jets? There's more than just a smidgen of hypocrisy evident
>>here.
>
>Excuse me, but there are two BIG differences between the two. The check
>"bouncers" did not cost the tax payers thousands for their "improprieties"
>(they cost the tax payers nothing, period), and, most importantly, it was
>the policy of the house bank to allow such drafts. You may argue the
>soundness of this policy, but the house members who took advantage of it
>were within their rights.
>
Don't get your panties in a twist Doc...Sununu was also "within his rights".
I wasn't defending either action. At their worst both were egregious
abuses of privilege. You may argue the Bush Administration policy of allowing
major members of the Executive Branch to fly around at taxpayer expense
but etc....etc....  

>If this is the only "crime" the Repubs could come up with to hold over
>those evil Demos, it is no wonder they lost.
>
What are you talking about? If I want to bash Congress for abuse of
office I can find a lot of things worse than the House Banking Scandal.
Care to talk about Franking? You sound more than a tad paranoid here.

Besides, the House affair was not a strictly partisan issue. I said 
"many" not "all". And if the Congress is as innocent as you claim 
why are did they try so hard to impede the investigation of the 
matter? They knew how this situation would be viewed by their
constituents and they were running scared. As Bush found out,
it's the perception that counts...not the reality.

Try not to knock yourself out with that furiously jerking knee...

*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,osu.opinion.libertarian,osu.opinion,alt.politics.marrou,cmh.opinion,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Subject: Re: Labelling laws.
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 09:36:39 GMT

In article <1g2qu0INN72g@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.143636.7769@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>>Yep.  Too bad for you Jews didn't like being "adult" and getting marched
>>off to the gas chambers by the Nazis.
>>


>>This is really too much.  Do you honestly see no difference whatsoever
>>between a consensual relation (employer-employee) and a coercive one (subject-
>>subjugator)?

Of course there is a difference--however both types of relationships can
be somewhere in between. Take our government for instance.


>
>Our current government is consensual, as you well know.  There has been
>non-consensual employment in the past (slavery.)  If you don't consent to
>our government, you can depart to any government that will have you.
>Both my parents have changed their governments: my mother from Canada and
>my father from Nazi-occupied Austria.

True.  However you have to leave the country to do this, a pretty big 
sacrifice for some people.  Also, for a lot of people the alternative
to staying with their current job is welfare (an unacceptable alternative
for lots of people.)   You employer cannot threaten you with imprisonment
(like the government) but the threat of unemployment can still be used 
to coercive effect.   

>
>In fact, our government is better than consensual: citizenship is automatic
>for many, and citizenship cannot be revoked for any reason except fraud
>upon application for citizenship.

Doesn't seem like consent when I "automatically" become a citizen.  

>
>Mike Huben
>
>"To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage
>to proclaim what reason shows to be true."
>	Bertrand Russell in "The Prospects of Industrial Civilization".


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:35:15 GMT

In article <BzD0IE.1Gz@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>In article <1992Dec12.215840.1920@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen) writes:
}>}Agreed that our government has gotten much more socialistic this century,
}>}and has veered away from the original intent of the framers of the
}>}Constitution.  However, I don't believe we really want to return to some
}>}of the 19th Century govt. practices.
}
}>Whether "we" want to or not is irrelevant.  Whether we should is the issue.
}
}And the answer is that we should not.  Let's say it again: it was
}not a Golden Age.

I've never claimed it was a Golden Age, and I certainly wouldn't want to
return to it temporally.  However, I disagree with the standard critique
of it as being predominated by problems that were caused by laissez-faire.

}>What's wrong with exploitation (all it means it to benefit from), and how
}>were either sweatshop workers or the rail workers oppressed?
}
}They suffered a low standard of living, a high rate of ill-health,
}and the knowledge that they had little if any chance of moving out
}of their situation.

During the period from 1873-1893, as I recall, average real wages went up,
interest rates went down... in the period from the end of the war between
the States and WWI, the average standard of living increased by a factor of
six.

Children who worked 12 hour shifts down coal
}mines ended up with black lung.  Children who didn't get paid
}enough to eat well suffered from rickets.

What were their alternatives?

Rail workers were economic
}slaves, with conditions not far off from those of South African miners
}today.  If someone suffered a work-related injury, there was little
}if any recompense, and little if any chance of future employment.
}How nice.

I believe the railroads were that special case, beneficiaries of State
subsidy.  Their subsidy was per mile of track laid, which led to long
stretches that weren't as straight as they could be, and other shoddy
business practices went along with this.  The only exception I know of
to this was Henry Hill's Great Northern Raildroad, which began as a
State subsidized monster, but was done laissez-faire by Hill, and done
well so far as I know (see "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by Burton
Fulsom Jr. on this).  Were Hill's laborers so badly treated?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: aa396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill Henley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Somalia, Liberatarian State
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:31:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


I don't think situations like Somalia or Beirut invalidate all
libertarian ideas, but they do cast a lot of doubt on the
feasibility of anarcho-capitalism.  The rival "militias" of
Beirut and "warlords" of Somalia are a little too close for
comfort to the "competing defense agencies" described by
writers like Rothbard and David Friedman.  

Granted, these writers assume that their anarcho-capitalist
societies would have a majority of people who understand and
accept libertarian non-aggression principles; this is obviously
not the case anywhere in the world today.  But it still seems
all too possible that a society of "competing defense agencies"
could degenerate into something like Somalia, rather than
achieving the largely peaceful equilibrium that anarcho-
capitalists envision.

I speak by the way as one who sympathizes with the intentions
of the anarcho-capitalist writers (Friedman's MACHINERY OF
FREEDOM is one of my favorite books) and wishes their scheme
of things COULD work.  But Somalia and Beirut look like
evidence that it probably would not.

-- 
Bill Henley, Assistant Sysop, Cleveland Free-Net Science Fiction
& Fantasy SIG (aa396)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 18:55:16 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Dec13.134148.26485@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>In article <a0R=Lv_@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>>
>>Look at the free market, pal, look at the free market. It doesn't really
>>matter what gold is *used* for, what matters is that there is a demand
>>for it, and that there is a supply of it. The most useless thing in the
>>world has value if people want it and people can supply it. Gold is a
>>good store of value because it's durable, doesn't rot, decay, or dissolve,
>>and is relatively rare. If you can come up with something else on which
>>to base currency, sounds good to me. As long as it's *something* concrete.
>>I want a guarantee from the government along the lines of, "We're giving
>>you these green pieces of paper to use as currency, and we assure you that
>>you can always exchange five hundred of them for an ounce of gold" or
>>something like that. Without any backing, the government can just print
>>more currency, causing inflation.
>>
>
>	I think your discription of gold is slightly off.  The demand for
>gold is relativly small.  The supply is huge, the major holders of gold
>and the major suppliers, are the people who maintain the high price by
>chocking off supply.  The natural supply of is very big.  As for golds
>physical properties that's true. What I would tend to think might be a
>good medium for exchange that does have an intrinsic value is oil.
>	Sort of like in early America where we used tabacco.
>

Horsepucky. You think my discription [sic] of gold is slightly off. You
think wrong. If you think that the price of gold is limited by people
choking off supply, I invite you to visit COMEX and watch the gold
trading pits. MILLIONS of ounces of gold trade hands EVERY DAY. There
is no shortage of a free market in gold.

Oil as a store of value?? Have you SEEN the price of oil flunctuate over
the past decade? What you want for a medium of exchange is something
*stable*... otherwise, the price of EVERYTHING flunctuates with the price
of your store of value. Oil varies widely in price, has an extremely
limited supply, gets USED UP, and is primarily supplied by foreign
powers. Do you want the economy of the U.S. to sit firmly in the palms
of Arabian sheiks? (bear in mind, all they'd have to do is embargo to
cause mass deflation here in the U.S.)

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Labelling laws.
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:11:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.093639.13227@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen) writes:
}You employer cannot threaten you with imprisonment
}(like the government) but the threat of unemployment can still be used 
}to coercive effect.   

This use of "coercion" equates power over nature with power over men; it
treats the economic means of dealing with people (productive earnings traded
by mutual consent to mutual benefit) the same as the political (productive
earnings taken against the will of the producer for the unequal benefit
of the oppressor).

In libertarian parlance, these are separate.  "Coercion" is a term of art
reserved to mean the initiation of force and/or fraud only.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:58:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.195702.6333@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>In article <724178044snz@keris.demon.co.uk> chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Dec8.151436.9552@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
>>           starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes:
>>
>>>Hope we win you over.  Damn few female libertarians.  Pity.
>>
>>Why?  No, I don't mean "Why is it a pity?" - why are there so few female
>>libertarians?  Is there something about the policies that puts them off?
>>Is there something in the attitudes of prominent libertarians which
>>seems to exclude women?
>
>I can't speak for women in general, of course (and it's hard to catch
>up with all the women who aren't libertarians and ask them why they
>aren't).
>>
>I don't know about prominent libertarians, but in _Reason_ and _Liberty_
>(the two libertarian publications I follow), I've seen altogether too
>much of the "asshole conservative humor" aren't-feminists-ridiculous
>sort of articles, and no countervaling stuff. I don't feel entirely
>welcome as a result.
>
>I don't agree with a good bit of feminism, but I've also gotten a great
>deal of value from feminism, and a lot of it has to do with liberty and
>a sense of my own value. I don't see any recognition of the more valuable
>parts of feminism in libertarianism, and I do see a lot of mockery.
>
>Nancy Lebovitz
>nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>

	I think this is topic worth discussing.  Why are so many
libertarians opposed to feminism?  

-JMB


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian