HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lgibes@teal.csn.org (Lawrence R. Gibes)
Subject: Jefferson WAS right
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:13:55 GMT

>ebstokes@crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
>It seems that in my ordinary conversations with otherwise intelligent
>people, the idea that the government will ever get so bad as to require
>self protection is _universally_ viewed as paranoid.
>
>We have to get our principles accepted at the local level before
>anyone will accept them on a grand scale. In other words, semi-automatic
>weapons are not an issue in the town council race...

     Do you have  an open mind  on this issue?   What would  change your
  mind?  Would at least one counter example change your mind?  Would  an
  example of our local government attacking innocent people using vastly
  superior fire  power and  full body  armor change  your mind?   If so,
  consider the  numerous cases  of people  being killed  during no-knock
  raids.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: free market
Summary: didn't we have this discussion before???
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:52:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov11.185629.23861@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes...
>A central requirement of laissez faire is that no participant in the
>economy be large enough to single-handedly influence the market.

	Huh?  There is no such requirement.  An example is ALCOA which did
have a tremendous influence at one time on the production of refined
aluminum.  In fact, it was practically the only producer of aluminum in
the U.S.  It didn't look like any government interference caused this
situation, so this meant it had a natural monopoly.  HOWEVER, it could
never escape market forces.  It still had to produce high quality aluminum
at a very competitive price (competitive with the *potential* of competition
which was *very* real) in order to maintain that monopoly.  So the most
successful example of a natural monopoly in history was bound by
self-correcting market forces.

	ALCOA was very skilled in producing aluminum and in satisfying
customers.  That was how they kept their monopoly.  Should it be punished
for the skillful job it was doing?  How can one justify the higher
aluminum prices and lower quality aluminum that followed the "monopoly
busting".


>The difference from your economics literature is that classical
>economics assumes that no such concentration could take place.

	No.  It recognizes that no such concentration would make
any real difference to consumers.  Even ALCOA was a boon to its
customers.  Who cares if they were able to keep competitors from
gaining a foothold in the market?  (Besides, the conditions under which
economy of scale allow for the creation of a natural monopoly are
extremely rare anyway.  It's not like this 'problem' would even
occur very often.)


>This is a belief that (IMHO), is no less utopian than Marx's beliefs
>about private propery (or lack thereof), and is not supported by
>a study of history.

	Not by *your* study of history, perhaps.

> 
>		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)


Mark Sulkowski
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2075 alt.politics.libertarian:1592
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: More Ohio state election results
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:44:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
> U.S. House of Representatives:
> 
> 9th District (Toledo area)
> Marcy Kaptur (D)    163,794  77.0%
> Ken D. Brown (R)     48,790  23.0%
> Ed Howard (L)             0   0.0%  <-- According to the Columbus 
>                                         Dispatch, but I don't 
>                                         believe it.  Hey, Jason, 
>                                         you voted for Ed Howard, 
>                                         didn't you? Of course, 
>                                         these are still incomplete.

i didn't vote in that district. (absentee ballot)

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data  `,`
`,`  is Life -- The Player's Litany, from _The Long Run_ by D.K. Moran  `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: semi-automatic weapons
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:09:40 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
> 
> Of all the folks I spoke with, three of them had heard of Marrou. 
> All three knew about him due to the NPR interview (seemingly great 
> so far). All three of them are traditional Democrats who aren't 
> comfortable with Clinton. All three, earlier in the year, were at 
> least interested in the LP.
> 
> All three of them were firmly convinced that Andre Marrou is a 
> lunatic, because of some comments he made about the right to own 
> semi-automatic weapons. Apparantly, one reason given was to protect 
> ourselves from the government.

sounds like Andre's been quoting Jefferson again. what a lunatic...
;^)

> Now I am a Libertarian, and voted for Marrou, so don't flame me. 
> But it seems that to universally offend potential voters (who agree 
> with other Libertarian positions) by making a paranoid-sounding 
> comment about semi-automatic weapons on NPR was rather short 
> sighted.

this may be one of the reasons that the LP doesn't get more votes
among people who even know what it is. the little diamond chart is
useful for illustrating this Libertarians are in favor of freedom in 
just about everything. both of the other two parties are identified
as much by what they'd like to -restrict- as the freedoms they support.
the LP is in the uncomfortable position of offending people on both
sides.

realize that many libertarians don't come from a liberal background.
there are quite a few who are actually dissatisfied -Republicans-. 
those people are tolerating, or have come to accept and even defend, 
the Libertarian positions on personal self-governance just as as your 
friends would have to tolerate the LP's postion on gun control and 
economic issues.

if they cannot do so then they are not libertarians. i am glad that 
Marrou didn't compromise his positions (even the ones i disagree 
with) to get more votes. i see that as more of the long view than
a short-sighted grab for votes at the expense of principles would
have been.

jason

--
"Nine out of ten men, women & children enjoy a cold beverage." - Letterman
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2236 alt.politics.libertarian:1831
From: ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Local libertarian gov't (was: re: semi-automatic weapons)
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:51:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: GE Corp. Research & Development, Schenectady, NY

sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes...

> ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes...

>> Exactly ! My response to all three was that this idea, to protect
>> ourselves from a tyrannical government, came from Jefferson. This
>> just resulted in blank stares...
>> It seems that in my ordinary conversations with otherwise intelligent
>> people, the idea that the government will ever get so bad as to require
>> self protection is _universally_ viewed as paranoid.

> Try mentioning Nazi Germany.  Point out that the economy got so bad
> there that out of desperation they decided to elect a dictator.  Point out
> that the economy is getting worse here, and if we fall into a depression, then
> even the American people may get desperate enough to give up all rights to
> some American dictator.  If they still don't believe it, point out that the
> Germans before Hitler would probably not have believed it themselves.

I have tried this. It usually results in reinforcement of the perception
of paranoia. Most Americans, _refuse_ to contemplate that what happened
in Nazi Germany could ever happen here. Just an observation.

jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes...

> so what's the best way to promote libertarian ideals
> on local level? how would a libertarian city government work, for
> example?

I've been thinking about this. One example of an area of needed change
is in garbage collection/recycling. Cities and towns all over the US
are getting more deeply entrenched in the trash business every day.
My city has just started a recycling program. Are they going to run
it like a business ? Not likely. This is an area where privatization
could have an immediate impact, all we need is Libertarian city
councils to implement it. Instead, we have generally swelling
government garbage infrastructure and rising taxes.

Privatization of city owned public housing is another possible
avenue. Donation of public property to Habitat for Humanity would
free up gobs of administrivia (Habitat accepts no government
funds, only private).

Ed Stokes
ebstokes@crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: free market
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:04:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.105846.13999@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <BxFyIE.J7B@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>}In article <8NOV199221071536@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>}>For those who care,  here's the essential argument for a free market:
>}>
>}>1) a free (uncoerced) transaction is beneficial to both parties (otherwise 
>}>they wouldn't make the swap),  thus resulting in an increase of total utility.
>}>
>}>2) Any interference with the free market is effectively a constraint which
>}>prevents utility-increasing transactions from taking place.
>}
>}  What if the transaction is harmful to third parties who are not participants
>}in the transaction. This applies to all kinds of situations including victims
>}of theft, victims of pollution, etc.
>
>That's easy.  They're coerced transactions.

  It's only easy if you're simple-minded enough to ignore the point. The
effect on the third party is coerced but s/he is not party to the transaction
itself, which may be uncoerced. The point is that regulation has a place in
the so-called marketplace to avoid and or minimize these effects, whether
intended or just irresponsible, on innocent third parties.

>
>Not all utility increasing is beneficial
>}to society as a whole or to anyone other than the immediate participants. That
>}is why completely free, unregulated markets are not appropriate in complex
>}societies with non-ideal participants and competing interests.
>
>Wrong, but where to begin refutation?  Some literacy in Austrian theory is
>required here.

  Cut the self-important hand-waving crap and make your point to us poor,
ignorant slobs or just admit you don't have one.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2157 alt.politics.libertarian:1692
From: josh@foglet.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Marrou shows his true colors!
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:50:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.marrou
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

>If you'd only accept JESUS as your LORD and SAVIOR, and open your mind to
>the WORD of the LORD in the HOLY BIBLE, you'd see the error of your ways
>and no longer believe in EVILOUTION!  :-(

Maybe you should read "Bionomics" and discover how close a
parallel there is between evolution and the market economy...

>Why is it that libertarians here (like you) seem to be incapable of
>transmitting these TRUTHS in their postings?

Perhaps because the anti-libertarians here (like you) perceive truth
as consisting in those messages containing the most capital letters?

>Why do I suspect that "Economics in One Lesson" is as complete and rigorous
>as a Chick Publication?

Because you haven't read it.

>Look, if you would like to rebut me, why not be specific?  

You haven't said anything to rebut.  Your postings consist entirely of 
mindless sarcasm (see above).  You have given no evidence of mental 
processes beyond those of a parrot.  Your stock of "knowledge" consists
entirely of popular untruisms, statist propaganda, and jingoistic slogans.

You apparently cannot understand anything that is said to you, nor do 
you even try.  Trying to rebut you is a task similar to rebutting TV
commercials:  no matter what one says, the same commercial will play
again in 20 minutes.  The long-suffering patience of the people who
have continued to try is, frankly, quite amazing.

Grow up.  Learn to read.  Think.

--j
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: Marrou < 0.3%. The *REAL* reason...
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:18:16 GMT

  Are you sure of those numbers?  I can see that it's possible that some
of Marrou's votes haven't been tallied yet, but if so how is it that Genis's
and Boddie's votes -were- tallied?
  That seems hard to explain, but then again so is the notion that the LP
Senate candidates got five times as many votes as the LP Presidential
candidate.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2087 alt.politics.libertarian:1612
From: ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: semi-automatic weapons
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:29:09 GMT
Organization: GE Corp. Research & Development, Schenectady, NY

jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu writes:

>ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
>> 
>> All three of them were firmly convinced that Andre Marrou is a 
>> lunatic, because of some comments he made about the right to own 
>> semi-automatic weapons. Apparantly, one reason given was to protect 
>> ourselves from the government.
>
>sounds like Andre's been quoting Jefferson again. what a lunatic...
>;^)
>
Exactly ! My response to all three was that this idea, to protect
ourselves from a tyrannical government, came from Jefferson. This
just resulted in blank stares...

It seems that in my ordinary conversations with otherwise intelligent
people, the idea that the government will ever get so bad as to require
self protection is _universally_ viewed as paranoid.

Now I don't think that we should compromise on principles, but we
should examine the fact (?) that maybe the American public is
not ready for a Libertarian federal government. Maybe, instead
of blowing a wad on an unwinnable presedential race, we should
blow 1000 milliwads on possibly winnable state and local races.

We have to get our principles accepted at the local level before
anyone will accept them on a grand scale. In other words, semi-automatic
weapons are not an issue in the town council race...

Ed Stokes
ebstokes@crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,soc.history
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:29:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.003227.20987@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>A libertarian USA wouldn't prohibit selling oil to belligerents, but that
>>doesn't mean that individuals (or individual companies) couldn't decide not to
>>sell the oil.
>All it takes is one.

This argument would suggest that there is no such thing as a boycott.  Somehow
there is anyway.

If most companies won't sell them oil, the ones who do will be able to charge
higher prices for it (supply and demand).  Prohibiting oil sales at all, of
course, unless there is a complete worldwide embargo, just means that they
will also have to pay higher prices.  If enough companies decide not to sell
them oil, the higher prices charged by the ones who do will be sufficiently
close to the higher prices in the second scenario to have similar effects.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: Marrou shows his true colors!
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:50:18 PST

In article <1de46rINN6sb@armory.centerline.com>, on 6 Nov 1992 15:49:47 GMT,
mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>Why is it that libertarians here (like you) seem to be incapable of
>transmitting these TRUTHS in their postings?
>
Because you've failed to make an offer of compensation for your
education. There ain't no free lunch, Hubris.

        =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:38:21 GMT

>I _do_ know someone who had to have one...yes...that's right...I said HAD to.
>Let's just say that she's 4'8" and was pregnant with twins.  With her
>particular size, etc, the doctor said either abortion or death.
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If this is true (i.e. the Doctor said this and he was telling the truth)
then most pro-lifers (including myself) have no problem. If only one
life can be saved you have to make some decision and this decision
belongs in the hand of the couple involved.

>
>I am ANTI-abortion, but pro-CHOICE.  These are two different things, people!
>Sure, I didn't like the thought of what she did, but I'm damned glad she's
>still around...it was entirely her CHOICE to make, not anyone else's.

I must say that I find it hard to believe that a person can't safely
deliver twins unless they are at least 5' tall. Must be hell in Japan.
I'll have to ask my doctor friend about that one.

				mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: gletty@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Bruce Gletty)
Subject: Re: Why????
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:51:34 GMT

tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.211621.13863@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>> Also, as far as just a general "sell" is concerned, I think the Political
>> Quiz with the diamond graph on it is a good method.  A lot of people are
>> surprised to find out how Libertarian they are, and they're a lot more
>> receptive to the rest of our ideas once it's clear that they agree with
>> us on a lot of things.

>   I'm afraid that more is required. I wish it were so simple.

A major problem is that the 2 parties have the people of the USA (with
the willing help of big media) convinced that voting for anyone else
is either a waste of your vote or scareligious.

>   This election campaign was perhaps the most distressing in memory.
>   Not only because of the outcome, but more importantly because of
>   the political ground over which battle was waged.

>   The commonality between the three `official' candidates is the
>   presumption that government is essential to be able to solve
>   problems - "confronting the issues" is endemic to them.

The government has a vested interest in having people think this way, so
it (and the media) work really hard to keep it going. If people started
thinking and taking responsibility, they might actually do away with a
lot of the government. You have to expect that politicians are going to
work to keep their jobs!

>   People clearly are far happier if someone comes along and offers to
>   solve their problems for them. No matter that they have failed
>   before or have some strange new slant on how to solve them,  so
>   long as they are convincing or untried.

Its an epidemic. Few people want to take any responsibility for what they
do. Its much easier to blame it on someone else.

>   The Libertarian party should of course try to get the message out,
>   but they should do more. They should realize that the first battle
>   is to return to the minds of the electorate that THERE ARE IMPLICIT
>   ASSUMPTIONS in the major parties of the necessity of government
>   involvement.

Lots of attitude adjustment in the populace is required here.

>   By the way, for what it is worth, my opinion is that a Clinton
>   victory is the worst possible outcome for the libertarian party.
>   The republicans will, after much solesearching, most likely come
>   back next time with a more Libertarian-sounding agenda. Perot's
>   crypto-fascists didn't break the two party hold. 
 
It may just be the worst thing for all concerned. I hope I'm wrong.
-- 
This post is mine, and does not necessarily reflect the views of C.C.S.O.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2185 alt.politics.libertarian:1770
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Date: 13 Nov 1992 15:39:09 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Nov12.030049.12415@telesciences.com> msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio) writes:
>First, I'm not a Libertarian.  I disagree with them on a few important
>issues, so I wouldn't want to register my name with the party.  However,
>I absolutely agree with them on the importance of taking the Constitution
>seriously.  The Constitution exists to protect you and me from authority
>gone bad.  When the authority begins to overstep its bounds it is our duty
>to protest, even if the abuse of authority benefits us.

I agree with Mom and Apple Pie also.  You'd be hard pressed to find a
political position that held otherwise.  Hell, even Scientologists and
Moonies make a big deal about Constitutional issues and government abuse.
Sorry, but this does not differentiate you from anyone else except some
really tiny fringes and those who actually violate the constitution.

The Constitution does not merely protect you from abuse: it also states
how your responsabilities to the government (as embodied by laws) shall be
decided.  If that's not clear enough responsability, you can look at what
article 3 says about treason.

>Second, I do accept civic responsibility, and would gladly pay for 
>Constitutionally mandated services that I receive, in addition to making
>voluntary contributions to charity.  But if you want the government to
>force me to contribute to the charities that it chooses, then get working
>on a 27th Amendment to the Constitution so that what the government is
>currently doing will at least be legal.  Just don't ignore the 5th
>Amendment in the meantime.

Sorry, but that was done in the 16th ammendment.  It was created specifically
to legitimize such taxes, and has been interpreted as such by the Supreme
Court.  Therefore, no such 27th ammendment is needed.  Legal is what the
Supreme Court says it is.

Mike Huben

Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a
	   case brimming with such poetical emotion?"
Chancellor: "Distinctly."
	From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian