HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Keywords: snowball's chance
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:19:51 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct1.170318.13169@iplmail.orl.mmc.com> steveg@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Steve Gabrilowitz) writes:

>How can I vote for a candidate who admits he has no chance of winning?  Isn't this
>just about the same as throwing my vote away, or just plain not voting at all?

By not voting you are implying that the two major candidates are acceptable
to you.

Even if minor party candidates do not win, they do affect the debate.
The 1930's socialist party never came close to winning the presidency
either, but the entirety of their platform has since been adopted by one
or both major parties.

If Marrou makes a large enough showing then the next time around it will
be easier for Libertarians to gain access to debates and to be covered by
the media, which will spread our message further.  The more people hear
of the Libertarians, the more they begin to believe they might just
be viable after all.

Once the Libertarians start to reguraly draw significant numbers of voters,
(10% ?), the two major parties will begin to adopt our positions.

Basically, we can win, without ever winning.

In the end I encourage you and everyone else.  If you do not like the
major parties, investigate the minor parties and vote for the one you
like the best.  Doing anything else just serves to propagate the
current system.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1992Sep29.223953.26882@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1992Sep30.091620.6641@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<2OCT199217463810@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:00:57 GMT

In article <2OCT199217463810@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> secsu@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ralph O. Clark) writes:
   The real question here is the difference between *governmental* coercion
   and *private* coercion. If a security company bashes in your door,
   you can have them arrested for breaking and entering, sue for civil
   damages, etc. If the *police* break and enter, you have no recourse.

It's trickier than even that.  For one thing, you *can* sue the
police, the "government", etc.  You also have some influence via your
vote.  But yes, it's usually pretty difficult to haul the police into
court.  On the other hand, once you've abolished courts with universal
jurisdiction, that is, the government courts, and the government
police that enforce their decisions, you're going to have a pretty
difficult time hauling the private armies into court, too.  Unless, of
course, you're able to hire a bigger army.

Dale
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:446 alt.society.anarchy:276
From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:55:05 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian

jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au (James Uther) writes:

>2) starvation is still the rule worldwide (perhaps not in your precious U.S.)

Isn't it interesting that the exceptions to this rule are those
countries in which some measure of capitalism exists?

--

	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822444
From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Vouchers for Schools
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:58:16 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <56333@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> skis@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Kevin
Hough) writes:
>In article <19kcatINNngc@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> intruder@cats.ucsc.edu (Isaac Trud
er) writes:
>>
>>It's my understanding that George Bush has proposed a program whereby the
>>state would allot each parent a certain amount of funds as a voucher to
>>send their child to the school of their choice.
     [ ... ]
>>                                                                 But I'm
>>curious; is this proposed program acceptable to Libertarians, and why or
>>why not?
>From what I've heard, many people oppose the voucher system because it might
>allow gov. funding to religious schools, or schools that mandate some religiou
>education.
>If a parent is alloted funds to sent their child to a, say, catholic school,
>AND, that money would have gone, as tax money, to a public school otherwise,
>than that would be taking government money away from that public school to
>finance the catholic school.  This would violate the "seperation between churc
>and state".
>What other views are there on this issue?  could there be a system like this
>that doesn't violate such principles?

If I take my tax return, and give it to the church of my choice, would this
violate the seperation of church & state? I mean, that money _was_ tax money,
and it would now be going to support a religious group.

I feel that once the money is in the hands of the people, where they spend it
is their concern, not the government's.

The same would be true about school vouchers. Let the people decide where the 
voucher money will go. If they fell that the "church" schools would provide the
best education, they should be allowed to put their voucher monies there.

Just my thoughts,
-
-- 
If the price that I must pay to obtain my *  Robert E. Day/Syr Otto von    *
freedom, is to acknowledge that the Gov-  *  Schwartzkatz, Shire Mugmort   *
ernmet was granted the power to infringe  *  Barony Middle Marches,        *
on them, then I am not free. Paul Anderson*  Middle Kingdom                *
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Education (Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.)
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:43:03 GMT
	<ISBELL.92Sep30091546@panther.ai.mit.edu> <6906@transfer.stratus.com>
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: cdt@sw.stratus.com's message of 30 Sep 92 23:58:09 GMT

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
|> By the way, from where do the vouchers come?  Local taxes? State taxes?
|> Federal taxes?

|There are other aspects to this question that concern me.  A tax-supported
|voucher involves the government taking money from you so that it can later
|give it back to you for your own use.  This is frighteningly analogous to
|the myth of "federal highway funds" -- you know, those funds that the feds
|use to blackmail the states into surrendering sovereignity over questions such
|as "what shall the drinking age be in our state?", "what shall the speed limit
|be on our state highways?", and "shall we require our drivers to wear seat 
|belts under penalty of law?"

Well, if there are no taxes, then there are no vouchers, right?  In
that case, if I'm correct, you would have a purely free market
approach.  From a Lib's perspective vouchers are a nice compromise in
the meantime, right?
--
Peace.
          "Until the lions have their historians,
           tales of the hunted will always glorify the hunter."
                        - African proverb
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Common interests of businesses
Date: 5 Oct 1992 22:30:32 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <6983@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.094807.8167@hellgate.utah.edu>, galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>> Unless all companies used the same standard contract.  Remember, there
>> would be no anti-trust laws to prevent companies from joining together
>> to preserve their common interest.  
>
>Right.  As if, say, Ben and Jerry's would never consider hiring someone
>that was turned down by Dow Chemical.  Or folks who got flushed by Watson
>shouldn't bother even applying to Wozniak.  Companies often have less
>"common interest" than you might like to think.

Piffle.  If it wasn't for what vestiges of privacy law we have now, nobody
with any significant problems logged in their medical history would be able
to find employment with medical benefits.

You forget or ignore the very successful Hollywood blacklists of the McCarthy
Era.  And various other blacklists made illegal by laws concerning union
organization.

You ignore the very real difficulty any whistleblower has in finding further
employment.

You ignore the fact that it is impossible to get a major loan of any sort
without signing a release for a full credit history.

Do you think for a minute that employers wouldn't use the services of a
"work history" bureau?  But wait!  There's more!  Under libertaria, there
would be no regulation: anything could go into your work records, and they
wouldn't have to show them to you.  Imagine if that happend with your
credit reports: opinions of lenders on top of the 25% (or higher) average
error rate, and no government mandated recourse to get them corrected?

Better bend over and let your manager b*tt-f*ck you rather then allow him
to give you a bad review, which every potential employer will be able to
read.  Privacy isn't property in libertaria.

What libertarians never mention is that companies are also competing to
extract as much from their employees as possible.  Government (by labor laws)
helps standardize the amount of work, thus shifting the competitive load
off the employees and onto the products.  These laws were enacted to
standardize things like the 8 hour workday, to end child labor, to create
humane factory conditions, etc.

Companies have LOTS in common: they have employees.  They want the same
thing out of their employees: as much work for as little money as possible.
Name some nations without labor laws, and tell me about their idyllic
working conditions.

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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:616 alt.society.anarchy:379
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: You can't, and shouldn't TRY, to control the economy.
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:20:49 GMT
 <qoigbu0@zola.esd.sgi.com> <1992Oct6.213354.26765@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <qosglk8@zola.esd.sgi.com>

thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:


>I wrote:

>Value is subjective.  Not only is something's value different from 
>person to person, but it is different for a single person from 
>moment to moment.

Nowhere does utility theory assume fixed utility functions for all time.

>Value is ordinal, that is, value manifests itself as choices between
>things.  I choose to make house payments instead of buying another car.
>(Ordinal numbers just order things, like first, second, and third.
>Cardinal numbers, in contrast, specify amounts.)  One aspect of the
>importance of this is that just because I might be willing to trade
>three apples for two oranges doesn't mean that I am willing to trade
>one apple for two thirds of an orange.

Modern utility theory is ordinal too.  The cardinality of the values are
meaningless.  As for your example:

So you don't have a function U(A,O)=2A+3O. I don't know of any utility functions
of this form that are taken seriously.  

>Value is unconserved.  This follows from the fact that value is 
>subjective, as well as from the fact that value is a function of
>a constantly changing and inhomogeneous set of external conditions.

Since when is utility conserved?

>Market prices are a manifestation of aggregate preferences, but (besides
>accounting in a specific common medium) mathematics can only say things
>about value by assuming conditions (i.e. no entrepreneurs, homogenous
>information, etc.) that basically make anything learned almost useless.

Agreed.  Quantitative microeconomic analysis is tough to port to the real
world in most cases.  But in fields such as auction theory, the empirical
evidence corroborates some pretty hairy calculations remarkably well.

>It is exactly the application of mathematics to utility theory that 
>is fundamentally flawed for the reasons I have stated (among others).

>thant

I don't think economics should be BASED on mathematical assumptions, but
math does have an important role. 

BTW, you didn't raise the valid point against utility models.  That is,
empirical tests show non-quantifiable, seemingly irrational relationships
among preferences.  Tests show people may prefer x to y, y to z, and z to x.
Go figure.  But your apples/oranges point can be easily overcome in many
ways.
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:523 talk.politics.theory:4436
From: adams@liszt.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Keywords: snowball's chance
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:33:43 GMT

As mentioned, even though Marrou wont win, if enough people vote libertarian then other
politicians will take notice.  This is already happening.  Bush is promoting the idea
of a school vouture system.  That idea came from the LP.  

Another real benefit of the LP is that it has prevented a lot of bond initiatives (I can
only speak for California) from getting passed by the voters.  The pro-bond people always
say that bonds wont cost the tax payer a cent.  The arguments against bond initiatives are 
almost always by libertarians who reply, "where the hell do you think the money to pay
off the bond and its interest is going to come from".  People understand this and usually
vote no on bonds.

-Adam
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:01:32 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <9368@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> Have you ever tried to get the school system to change.  With the
> current monopoly system they know that they have your kid whether
> you are happy or not.  Unless of course you are "rich" enough
> to afford a private school. 

More to the point -- they know they have your MONEY, whether they
even have your KID or not.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 26 Sep 92 15:42:09 GMT
	<ISBELL.92Sep25111138@panther.ai.mit.edu>
	<9334@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM's message of 25 Sep 92 21:01:03 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>I've been unclear about what happens when too many people want to go
|>to the same school.  So, what happens?  Do those who live near get
|>priority?  Will we have tests for four year olds?  What?

|Probably the same thing that happens when supply exceeds demand in any
|other part of the economy.

|Immeadiate response.  First come first serve.

Right.  That'll happen.  If the kids who've been going there for three
years because they live in the neighborhood can't get in, you'll have
armed rebellion.

|Short term response.  A raise in price to decrease demand.

In which case (given the correlation between income of neighborhood &
quality of school in neighborhood) the people who already go to the
school are the only ones who'll be able to afford the school, meani
nothing will change.

And if price can go up, what's the point of a voucher?

|Long term response.   Using the increased revenue from the increased price
	   to increase the supply.  IE. build more buildings and hire more
	   teachers so that there will be room for the extra students.

From where will the teachers come?

--
Peace.
                "I tried to get a drink in the terminal bar.  The bartender 
                 asked to see ID.... I was living a nightmare.  I was 
                 stranded in a happy paranoid land where the only people 
                 allowed to drink are people who drive."
                            - Kyle Baker, _Why I Hate Saturn_
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: aa001@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tom Grundner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Campaign '92 Documents Available--FREE
Date: 30 Sep 1992 14:21:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa001@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tom Grundner)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu



   The National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), is pleased to 
announce a new service for the duration of Campaign '92.

   We are teaming-up with the American Cybercasting Corporation to 
provide special Campaign '92 newsgroups to Internet hosts anywhere 
in the world--for FREE.

   These will be special moderated newsgroups containing the full-
text of the position papers, speeches, press releases, fact 
sheets, (and anything else we can obtain) from the campaigns of 
the REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, and LIBERTARIAN parties.  Each item will 
be carried complete and un-cut, and each is obtained directly from 
official sources within the respective campaigns.  (These are NOT 
discussion groups--you can get that in alt.politics.<whatever>.  
They are moderated newsgroups containing pure campaign information 
for your study and analysis.  You can argue about it somewhere 
else.)

   These special newsgroups will be delivered directly to your
host system by ACC.  The value is obvious for political science 
classes, students, faculty, staff, and anyone else who wants the
FULL story and not just sound-bites and factoids.

   To obtain the newsgroups, have some decision-maker at your 
computing center send an e.mail message to: usa@americast.com 
and all will be made manifest by return e.mail.  The message
MUST contain the name, title, and institution of the person
making the request somewhere in it.

   To repeat, there is no charge to receive this service from
American Cybercasting (although donations to NPTN will be 
gratefully accepted).

-- 
T.M. Grundner, Ed.D
President, National Public Telecomputing Network
Box 1987
Cleveland, Ohio 44106 - e.mail: tmg@nptn.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:32:39 GMT

In article <parvin1.718214048@husc11> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
}
}This classical approach is based on the assumption that utility is static.
}That is, if I make a transaction my utility may change, but if I don't it
}will remain the same.  Tell that to someone deciding whether to buy heat,
}food, electricity, etc.

Bullshit.  You don't know anything about what you're talking about.  Who
says we're economic classicists?  You're far mor likely to find adherents of
the Austrian school of economics than (neo)classicists among libertarians.
Acknowledging that marginal utility changes with time is one of the main
parts of Austrian or market-process theory.  In case you don't know, the
school of thought I'm talking about originated the theory of marginal utility.

}I'm sympathetic to many libertarian arguments, because I think the world
}would be a better place for most without government interference in many areas.
}But if you're going to base your legitimacy on simplistic categorical arguments
}like this, you can count me out.

You're certainly not going to win any points or debates without doing your
homework.


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,alt.politics.marrou
From: steveg@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Steve Gabrilowitz)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Keywords: snowball's chance
Organization: Martin Marietta
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:08:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.222721.17684@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct1.170318.13169@iplmail.orl.mmc.com> steveg@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Steve Gabrilowitz) writes:
|> >I'm new here, so please don't flame me - I'm not trying to start a debate despite
|> >possible appearance thereof in the subject line ;-)
|> >
|> >I've recently realized just how much the Libertarian platform agrees with my
|> >personal political beliefs, and am looking for more information.  From what I know
|> >of Marrou and what he stands for the biggest problem I have with casting my
|> >ballot for him is this:
|> >
|> >How can I vote for a candidate who admits he has no chance of winning?  Isn't this
|> >just about the same as throwing my vote away, or just plain not voting at all?
|> >
|> My tentative theory is that it depends on what time scale you're using--if
|> you're just thinking about the upcoming election, then it doesn't make
|> sense to vote for a candidate that can't win. On the other hand, if you
|> think that the major candidates are of about equal value, but voting for
|> a third party candidate will help build up an alternative that you'd
|> prefer, then voting for the candidate you believe in makes sense.

You have pretty much echoed the general consensus of those responding to my
question, but you have added one interesting little monkey wrench into the
machinery: I do not feel that the major candidates are of equal value, not in the
slightest.  Were it not such a close contest between the two candidates that
have a chance, it would be much easier to decide to vote for the long term future
instead of the short term.



-- 



I think
I think I am
Therefore I am!
I think...



                            Steve Gabrilowitz
                            Martin Marietta, Orlando Fl.
                            steve-gabrilowitz@orl.mmc.com
                            Fidonet 1:363/1701 (407-380-1701)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:445 alt.society.anarchy:275