HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 8 Jan 1993 19:17:18 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan7.170402.17174@zip.eecs.umich.edu> positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) attempts to mock me, but shows his ignorance instead:
>mrh@centerline.com (Huben the Authoritarian) saith:
>>Nobody is compelling Joe Richguy to do anything: he has chosen to live in the
>>USA and abide by our government.  Nobody is pointing a gun at him and
>>commanding him to stay here where by mutual agreement we are taxed.
>
>What "mutual agreement?" I was born here, now I'm told "be taxed or leave".
>Where's the mutuality in that?

If you were born here, then your parents freely made the choice for you.
At any time, you can select another nation to live in.  There is no secret
about the fact that if you choose to live here you must abide by the laws:
every immigrant explicitly agrees to that.  Those laws are created by the
process of mutual agreement called representative democracy.

>>Joe Richguy has now benefitted, since I have by now already repaid (through
>>taxes on my greater earnings) those subsidies, and can now better share
>>supporting the costs of society with him.
>
>Sorry. An appealing theory that is not backed up by the facts. In the first
>place, many, many people receiving government subsidies don't even come close
>to repaying their loan from society. In the second place, though, forcing
>someone to make a loan, even with complete confidence that it will be repaid,
>is wrong. Suppose I hold the ol' gun to your head and take your money from
>you. I then invest it in the soybean market, and a year from now, I give
>you back double your money. Have I acted rightly?

Gee, and some people never pay as much in insurance premiums as they receive
in benefits.  Sorry, but you haven't shown why either case is wrong.

A contractual requirement of residing in the USA is paying taxes.  You've
entered into the contract freely (as I pointed out above.)  Non payment of
taxes is fraud which you have initiated, plain and simple.

The social contract with our government shows characteristics of many kinds of
common agreements.  Like condominium ownership, you agree to pay fees assessed
to you by the condominium association, where you have representation.  Like
insurance, rates can vary from individual to individual, and services received
may be more or less than premiums paid.  Like eating in a restaurant, the
contract is understood, not signed: in a restaurant if you order, in our
nation if you reside here or have citizenship.

(I'm going to be so glad not to have to explain this over and over once my
FAQ is completed.)

Mike Huben

"... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make
themselves artificially stupid."  Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:50:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.163516.4229@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu comp.org.eff.talk:9432 soc.culture.usa:10804 alt.activism:22256
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!gatech!concert!samba!beta.math.unc.edu!bolden
>From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
>Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
>Message-ID: <1993Jan8.163516.4229@samba.oit.unc.edu>
>Sender: usenet@samba.oit.unc.edu
>Nntp-Posting-Host: beta.math.unc.edu
>Organization: University of North Carolina
>References: <4159@randvax.rand.org> <1993Jan7.233259.25877@infonode.ingr.com> <ARCHER.669.726508486@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:35:16 GMT
>Lines: 37
>In article <ARCHER.669.726508486@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>
>>Perhaps you can help me with something:  I am a practicing civil libertarian 
>>and generally support libertarian ideals, but there seems to be something 
>>missing.
>>
>>The basic tenet of libertarianism is that there should be no coercion of the 
>>individual to act in a manner he does not desire to act in.  This is further 
>>defined out as the initiation of physical force or "mental force", fraud.  
>>These are two abuses of power that are covered.  Formal libertarian doctrine 
>>does not seem to address the abuse of economic power. The problem that most 
>>contemporary liberals have with libertarianism is that is fails in this area.
>>
>>Here is a grossly simplifed example:  Joe Richguy wants my land, and I 
>>refuse to sell.  So joe buys all of the land around my land and forbids me 
>>to trespass unless I sell.  Thus, _I_ am forced to sell my land or live in 
>>isolation.
>>
>>How does libertarianism address this?  I can't seem to puzzle it through.
>>
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>	I would say that most libertarians hold "abuse of economic power"
>to be definitionally impossible.  In your example you purchased a piece of
>property, and didn't bother to guarantee that you had a method of egress
>and ingress.  Simply put, why didn't you sign a contract with one of your
>neighbors who borders on the road?  Further, have this contract apply to
>the deed and not the owner.
>	Basically a libertarian would hold that the above is your fault,
>due to lack of planning and forsight.
>
Thank you.  I don't know that I am completely satisfied with that, but you 
have given me something to think on.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: caliban@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (James)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Sapphire on Libertarianism
Date: 13 Jan 93 01:56:02 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

> 
> I think that "property" should be defined a little more tangibly than that.  
> can get very abstract about what is "property" and what isn't.  The only ex-
> ception I see is for patents on intellectual property.

I'm not sure what you mean by "tangibly" or "abstract" when
it comes to defining property.  Would you say that the right
to occupy a dwelling for six months of the year (i.e., time-
sharing a vacation home) or to dwell in a house without being
allowed to drill for oil in the back yard (because you're
only renting and the lease doesn't give you mineral rights)
or the right to buy something else at a set price at some
future date (a/k/a an option) or a five-twelfths share in 
whatever profits some business makes (i.e.,  41.67% of the
common stock) are "tangible" or "abstract"?  Or am I missing
the point of your comment entirely?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:49:32 GMT

In article <93007.041202U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>  I find it suprising that this abortion conversation is taking place in
>a liberterian forum, yet sounds like it does.
>
>  An anology:  A person moves into your house.  He eats your food, he
>drinks your water.  He makes life inconvienent and expensive for you.
>Yet, if you force him to leave, he will die.  Are you allowed to force him
>to leave?  According to liberterian reasoning, I beleive the answer must be
>yes.  I also think that the mother/fetus is the same situation.
>

An analogy:  You invite a person for a cruise on your yacht.  Your spouse/lover
thinks the person is a total bore.  You're days, maybe weeks from the nearest
port, and that might even take you off course, you can't bear this person's 
presence any longer, so you force him to leave.  And if he might be able
to make it on a life raft, that would make you look bad, so it's better to
just kill him now and avoid any embarrassment should he survive.  Even if 
you're only a day from port and the poor guy can't swim, you can still
throw him overboard.
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 10 Jan 1993 13:42 CST
Organization: GrinchCo
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan10.035344.26301@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes...
>In article <1993Jan9.231931.24551@midway.uchicago.edu> sals@caine.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:

>>> of Liberty to OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this
>>> Constitution FOR the United States of America.
>>> 
>>> --JMB
>>

Do you think people in general have the right to bind their children to 
contracts,  or only in this specific case.

> 
>>Additionally as I wrote in  
>>my post the constitution is not a binding contract because everyone who is  
>>bound by the constitution consented to it. 
> 
>	This makes no sense, would it be binding if ereryone did not
>consent to it, or if only someone consented to it?  What are you arguing?	

It should be obvious there's a missing 'not' here.  A contract cannot
be binding to people who have not consented to the contract.

> 
:>Many people opposed the  
:>constitution but had it forced upon them. Incidently the convention did a  
:>sneaky trick in sending the constitution not to the elected state  
:>legislatures to be ratified, but to special consititutional conventions.  
: 
:	Who, every state (except Rhode Island) agreed off the cuff, and
:since then every state has agreed.  Further, every citisen who is
:naturalized has explicitly agreed to its contents.
:

You've heard of the "Civil War",  haven't you?  The citizens of
the Confederate States had never consented to be bound by the
Constitution in the first place,  their elected state legislators
explicitly rejected it,  yet it was forced on them anyway.

> 
>	Finally, the founding fathers agreed that the dead had no right to
>bind the living. They explicitly addressed this with the Amendments
>clause, and the right for the states to pull out (later recinded during
>the civil war).  It still however binds individuals.
> 
>--JMB

This is a non-sequiter.  If the dead have no right to bind the living,
why should it require a majority vote in three quarters of the
state legislators for the living to overrule the dead?  Why should
it require anything?  

Perhaps you mean,  "the Constitution is enforced on individuals"?
It's true,  but irrelevant.  The supreme court has already ruled
that U.S. law can be enforced on individuals,  whether they committed
their crimes in U.S. territory or not,  whether they are U.S. citizens
or not.  Quite fair and appropriate,  of course,  but I can't see
how anyone can claim that these people are ethically bound by U.S.
law.

Mr. Grinch
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3101 comp.org.eff.talk:8385 alt.amateur-comp:507 soc.culture.usa:9527 alt.activism:20131
From: sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:43:50 GMT

In article <1is9sdINNck6@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike  
Huben) writes:
> Haven't you ever heard of loan sharks?  And isn't it funny: nobody  
forces you
> to borrow money from a loan shark.
True, but loan sharks are able to exist because federal banking laws do  
not permit banks to charge interest rates consumate with the risk
> 
> And did you know that mortgages and other loans get sold?  Mine has been  
sold
> three times already in two years.  Good thing it hasn't been sold to  
someone
> unscrupulous.
> 
> Let's look at the libertarian result: loan sharks bid to buy mortgages
> technically in default so that they can shoot the borrower and reposess  
the
> property.
> 
> (Reminder: this is a cartoon.  But it cannot be dismissed as easily as  
"it
> would be bad for business.")
> 
> Mike Huben
> 
> "Damn the Solar System.  Bad light; planets too distant; pestered with  
comets;
> feeble contrivance; could make a better myself."  Francis [Lord] Jeffery
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:44:40 GMT

In article <BZS.93Jan9194221@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>So in summary what you're saying is a libertarian won't be an anarchy,
>something we don't disagree on (even tho you seem to love to point
>this out at every opportunity), but instead will be a bloated lawyer's
>paradise of court actions and no doubt we'll just cover the land with
>court houses run by the govt and that will be the major function of
>govt, managing lawsuit processing.
>

Errrr, hate to jump in here, but are you saying we don't have a
"bloated lawyer's paradise" under the current system? Actually,
if the big two (parties) hadn't stuck their noses into what
essentially weren't legitimate government concerns and issues in
the first place, we probably wouldn't currently have what I'd
say the phrase  "bloated lawyer's paradise" pretty well describes :-).
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:12:02 CST
From: David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
Distribution: na
 <1993Jan6.215755.6033@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>

  I find it suprising that this abortion conversation is taking place in
a liberterian forum, yet sounds like it does.

  An anology:  A person moves into your house.  He eats your food, he
drinks your water.  He makes life inconvienent and expensive for you.
Yet, if you force him to leave, he will die.  Are you allowed to force him
to leave?  According to liberterian reasoning, I beleive the answer must be
yes.  I also think that the mother/fetus is the same situation.

  Of course, in situations where the father leaves the mother I am curious
as to what the accepted liberterian standpoint is.  Should the father be
compulsed to pay his share?  Should the mother assume the burden?  Should
the state( if it exists ) step in?  All of these present problems.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.
He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for
protection to his own" - Thomas Jefferson, 1814

SEND E-MAIL TO : hanley1@earth.eecs.uic.edu
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Subject: Re: Alt.Philosophy.Objectivism has started !
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:56:37 GMT

In article <tervio.11@katk.Helsinki.FI> tervio@katk.Helsinki.FI (TERVI| MARKO J) writes:
>
>   So check it out.

Actually, I'm the one who newgrouped it. *bow*

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/    Finger for PGP key       | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: sals@random.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:29:38 GMT

In article <1icddbINNvp@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike  
Huben) writes:
> Nobody is compelling Joe Richguy to do anything: he has chosen to live  
in the
> USA and abide by our government.  Nobody is pointing a gun at him and
> commanding him to stay here where by mutual agreement we are taxed.
> 

Ny mutual agreement...I don't remember agreeing to be taxed. And saying  
that I agreed to be taxed because I live in this country is nonsense.
> Joe Richguy has now benefitted, since I have by now already repaid  
(through
> taxes on my greater earnings) those subsidies, 

To whom have you repaid these subsidizes? Has anything happened other then  
a theft of money from one person and giving this money to someone else?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:15:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.210101.8651@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>If I ever get on my knees and beg for this kind of "equality", please shoot
>me.
>

A typical statist can't.  Gun control and the monopoly of force belonging to 
the state, y'know....

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3296 comp.org.eff.talk:8526 alt.amateur-comp:558 soc.culture.usa:9665 alt.activism:20273
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Date: 13 Jan 1993 00:43:52 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan8.232301.21934@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

> 	Yes a radio reciever is sort of a decryption device, however when
> one braodcasts a radio signal the intent is for the people at alarge to
> listen to it; you have the owners consent.  When one broadcasts a encrpted
> signal the intent is the opposite.  How doesn't it follow that the law
> should be different?

What, we base the law on the sender's intent?  How about police radar?
How about police scanners?  How about FBI radio bugs?  How about 
ex-post-facto prosecution ("I swear, your honor, at the time I broadcast,
I really DIDN'T want anyone else to hear that.")  No, thanks.
-- 

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,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Sapphire on Libertarianism
Date: 7 Jan 93 05:06:18 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <1ifv8oINNmbj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan) writes:
>
>Greetings,
>
>William Sapphire in a recent editorial called Brian Mulroney's
>advocation of criminalizing the interception and de-encryption
>of private sendings "libertarian." I believe because libertarianism
>bases everything on property rights and the declaration of 
>these acts as violating property rights must therefore be      
>libertarian.   
>
>For clarification, Mulroney referred to anything sent via the
>electromagnetic spectrum from which one could intercept without
>trespassing or physical sabotage of some sort. It seems the  
>"libertarian" conservative misconstrued what libertarians mean
>by property or has he?     
>
>What is the prevailing view on this among the libertarian folk 
>(which I consider part of)? Do minarchists and voluntarists
>hold different views?
>
>As a voluntarist, I think Mulroney and Sapphire, who agrees
>with Mulroney, are advocating infrining on my property rights
>by telling me what I can and can't intercept using my own
>private equipment--(or someone else's authorized for such
>use). 
>
>Virtually,
>
>Edmund J. Ryan

	I think it depends on what you consider to be property.  Clearly
the air is public property.  Clearly the radio signal... is public.  Is
the content of the radio signal public though?  I would think not, that is
the whole basis of intelectual property.  Otherwise, would a station lose
all rights to a show just because they broadcast it publically?

--JMB
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: an127@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Korac MacArthur)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Date: 12 Jan 1993 23:06:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Distribution: inet
Reply-To: an127@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Korac MacArthur)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) says:

>In article <ARCHER.669.726508486@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>	I would say that most libertarians hold "abuse of economic power"
>to be definitionally impossible.  In your example you purchased a piece of
>property, and didn't bother to guarantee that you had a method of egress
>and ingress.  Simply put, why didn't you sign a contract with one of your
>neighbors who borders on the road?  Further, have this contract apply to
>the deed and not the owner.
>	Basically a libertarian would hold that the above is your fault,
>due to lack of planning and forsight.
>
>__JMB
>
> 
	How about this abuse of economic power:  another huge recession
hits, jobs get axed and there is mass unemployment and poverty.  The
unemployed slobs were to stupid to draw up a clause in their contracts
about jobless benefits, so they are on the streets and starving.  
Joe Richguy cares not a whit and since there is no more govt. coercion,
doesn't do anything for his dying ex-employees.  Not enough people care
to help, so there is 3rd world conditions in many major cities.  Then
what?   People deserve the right to starve?    I'm sorry no, not if
humanity has any meaning other than species.   I like libertarianism's
ideas, but it also needs some social conscience.

>
>

-- 
Hey, George.....Nah na na na, NA NA NA NA,  HEEEY   HEYYY HEY,
GOOOOOODDDDBYYYEEEE!!!!!!   (and good riddance)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian