HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Thursday, 8 Oct 1992 17:55:53 EDT
From: <REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.elections
Subject: A vote is a vote... (was Re: The choices...
 <1992Oct6.015255.24699@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 <1992Oct6.162409.20615@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
 <1992Oct6.165228.4298@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 <1992Oct7.144337.2405@ornl.gov>

  If anyone can convince me that EITHER Bush OR Clinton are good for
America (My view of America, so good luck!) I'll consider voting for
them.  My mind isn't made up RE:Perot.  No, I don't like him.  BUT-
an electable third party candidate is a start...

  I just want to point out that I cannot sanction bullshiters in
office.  But then again, when faced with a choice between Mondale
and Reagan, I wrote in "NO", so what the F***.  I understand "NO"
received an electoral vote that year <grin>!

  But forget this election, for just a moment.  The two party system
is hardwired in the way our election is viewed.  You only get one
vote, so you feel compelled to choose one of the two fron-runners,
relegating the rest to beg votes from the H. Roark's of the world
<literary reference...>.  Couple this with the foolish majority
rules (and the very existance of) in the electoral college, and you
have a recipe for two dominant parties.  One way to acheive an
election mentality that favors three or more parties is to allow
each voter to rank his top three choices.  Weight the rankings, say
10, 5, and 1.  Heighest weighted votes wins.  In this strategy, you
could exhibit support for someone else while still influencing the runoff
between the evil of two lessers.

Jeff Andle   DoD #3005  1976 KZ900     REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
                                       jandle@wolf.eece.maine.edu (iffy)
     coming soon                   <something>@Polar.Bowdoin...   (Maybe)

"THE LESSER OF 2 EVILS IS STILL EVIL!" - NANCY LORD, C-SPAN 9/21/92
Choose between "tax & spend" vs. "lie & spend"?  Get real!
"What, Exactly, it the meaning of a victimless felony?"

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: Michael F. Kamprath <kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: And to the Republic for which it stands....
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 02:59:34 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Aerospace Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6FFECBFFF01C4FC@sprl-mac2016.sprl.umich.edu>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 03:02:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.041630.11687@cirrus.com> Dave Landis, lando@cirrus.com writes:
><========================================================================
><| Michael F. Kamprath                   | The University of Michigan   |
><|   kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu |      Aerospace Engineering   |
><|   kamprath@engin.umich.edu            |                              |
><+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
><| This country is a _democracy_.  It is NOT a "Two Party Sytem."  DO   |
><| NOT believe The Lie that not voting Republican or Democratic will    |
><| waste your vote.  Vote for who ever you please, and let the          |
><| politicians find out what a democratic government is all about.      |
><=======================================================================
>
>
>I must disagree.  The United States of America is a republic, it is not
>a democracy.  I quote from the Constititution
>

After several people pointing out my error in semantics, I concede defeat
and thus have fixed the problem.

========================================================================
| Michael F. Kamprath                   | The University of Michigan   |
|   kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu |      Aerospace Engineering   |
|   kamprath@engin.umich.edu            |      Graduate Student        |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| This country is a _democracy_.  It is NOT a "Two Party Sytem."  DO   |
| NOT believe The Lie that not voting Republican or Democratic will    |
| waste your vote.  Vote for who ever you please, and let the          |
| politicians find out what a democratic republic is all about.        | 
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai)
Subject: Re: Please let Marrou debate! -- and CNN's Crossfire
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 00:18:06 GMT

In article <MARTIN.92Oct8174655@chimera.titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> martin@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Tracy Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.181029.12186@leland.Stanford.EDU> adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai) writes:
>
>
>>   If the right-to-lifers really cared about life, why don't they adopt
>>   some third world babies, there are millions dying which could be saved
>>
>>   adesai@leland.stanford.edu
>
>
>Okay, I can't just be quite here. Adoption isn't as easy as you make it
>sound. Many people (including myself) would LOVE to adopt!!! But contact
>any adoption agency and they will tell you that there are more couples
>wanting to adopt than there are children that are adoptable. And if you 
>can find a child to adopt, it costs $10,000 to $15,000 plus legal fees,
>and if you adopt from overseas, you must add all the cost associated 
>with the overseas agency, governements, airfare, etc, etc. This 
>definitely hurts even upper-middle income people who could easily
>give a child a good home, but not if your are $20k in debt from the
>adoption alone!!! I know a couple who tried to adopt a child from Romania,
>and was willing and able to pay the costs, and still was not able to get
>a child because of the Romanian government!!
>
>
>So don't go bashing pro-life people on the adoption issue  until you check out
>the facts! 
>

Point well taken. I was bashing on the abortion issue, not the adoption issue. By adopt, I meant provide for in the sense that many lives could be saved
through funds for feeding and medical care, including in this country. my
point is there are many lives that could easily be saved if saving lives is
your priority. I should have used more appropriate language. 

You point to another problem which I will confess total ignorance, and
hence won't respond.
From: rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Real world example of society profiting from startup subsidies.
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:16:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

There is a better real-world example of an agricultural product which has
been improved tremendously in the face of government suppression :

	MARAJUANIA !

If there is demand for a product, the government doesn't need to subsidize
anything about it.

As for the land-grant colleges and Agricultural Extension Service, ask
most farmers about them and you will get a long list of simply crazy
ideas they have fostered. Examples are hedges such as the multiflora
rose which have covered the countryside in Ohio and now need a program
to suppress them.

It is a little hard to be sure they have, net, fostered agriculture.

Lew

-- 
Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Nils Bohr (or somebody like that).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:58:25 GMT

adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai) writes:
>At least Parvin's heart is in the right place: who doesn't want everyone
>to have heat and food? (Maybe neo-fascists republicans).

Ah, if it were only heat and food.  The ideology is extended to include
well paying jobs, cable TV, college education, guaranteed family leave,
unemployment compensation, diamonds, (what did we decide about Big
Macs?).  And a better question might be, who wants to pay for it?
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Fwd: Education (Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.)
Date: 10 Oct 92 12:16:51 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM's message of 7 Oct 92 16:38:15 GMT

daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
|> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
|> |Have you been following what has happened in the past two years in
|> |your own state, under Weld's "school choice" program?  Some of the
|> |most inefficient public school systems in the state (Hudson, Holliston, 
|> |and Maynard out my way) are being virtually ABANDONED by townspeople
|> |sending their children to neighboring schools (Marlboro, Framingham,
|> |and Acton).  Believe me, these people were just waiting for the
|> |freedom to leave -- a freedom they never had before, under force of 
|> |law.  And what about the places these kids wanted to go?  They're
|> |pleased as punch to get the money for teaching them, and there are
|> |plenty of places available.
|> 
|> Nope.  I don't get into Mass politics--I hate this place with a deep
|> passion that boils up from within my very soul.  Any pointers to where
|> I might read up on this?

|What, deep passion boiling up from your very soul.  

|I would suggest that you look up some bad poetry.

I've been too busy reading bad prose.  Maybe I'll look some up later.
Got any pointers?  Or better yet, got an answer to my original
questions?
--
Peace.
         "Sex between a man and a woman can be wonderful,
          provided you get between the right man and the right woman"
	                           --Woody Allen
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Keywords: abortion,platform
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:10:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.191808.5614@sei.cmu.edu> ask@sei.cmu.edu (Alan Koch) 
writes:

>BUT, this still differs from the mother/fetus question.  The mother did not
>cause the child to need a kidney transplant, nor should she have expected one
>to ever be necessary at the point where she decided to have a son. Pregnancy
                                                                    ^^^^^^^^^
>is totally voluntary (except in the case of rape), and carrying to (near) term
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>is ALWAYS necessary to insure the child's viability.

No it is not!  This may be news to you, Alan, but people *rarely* have sex
with reproduction in mind.  Using the same logic, you could say that
automobile accidents are totally voluntary, since they don't happen to
people who choose not to drive.  People take precautions against pregnancy
but sometimes those precautions are not sufficient.  In those cases, an
abortion may be chosen.  Globs of protoplasm don't have rights!

>Sorry, your argument falls short.

The argument is fine.  Your emotional attachment to an anti-abortion
philosophy is what's causing _your_ arguments to fall short.

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Keywords: abortion,platform
Organization: The Ohio State University
 <1992Oct14.201027.26476@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:11:18 GMT


In article <1992Oct14.185652.4381@sei.cmu.edu> ask@sei.cmu.edu (Alan Koch) writ
es:

>There has NEVER been a case of a fetus FORCING it's own conception, or even
>ASKING to be conceived.

Follow this to its conclusion and the parents are responsible for
everything that happens in the child's life.  If the child gets in
a horribly painful and disfiguring accident at age 25, he or she
could blame the parents for his or her suffering since he or she
never ASKED to be conceived.

>Except in the case of rape, the woman willingly put herself into the position
>of becoming pregnant.  If one subscribes to the "life begins at conception"
>belief, then she IS under obligation to carry it, just as she is under
>obligation to see that SOMEONE feeds her infant.


>That is the most infuriating part of the whole pro-choice argument.  It is
>based upon people's belief that they should NOT be held responsible for their
>own actions!  In ANY society (and especially in a libertarian one), personal
>responsibility is INDEED an important point.

WRONG!  

It based upon the belief that a fetus is property, and the rights
of existing humans beings always take precedence over potential human
beings.  In fact, potential (non-existant) human beings *have no
rights*.  I'm not trying to fan the flames of the abortion debate,
but you are misrepresenting the philosophy behind the pro-choice
movement and I won't allow it.

Is it just me, or have most of the anti-abortion arguments seen on the 
net lately focused on women not being 'responsible' for their actions?  
And don't most of these arguments come from men?  What's the matter boys,
afraid that once they're freed from the bonds of reproduction women will
actually start to enjoy themselves and have lots and lots of sex?

If you want to argue about whether a fetus has rights or not, that's
fine, but don't try to attach some huge artificial responsibility to
an act just because you aren't comfortable with the fact that people
do it and like it.

Steve Conley
C H A S T E   M A K E S   W A S T E !
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Please let Marrou debate! -- and CNN's Crossfire
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:28:32 GMT

In article <BvvoHB.99E.2@cs.cmu.edu>,
 garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>The Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in PA is (loudly)
>anti-abortion.  He's running the controversial ads which
>show pictures of dismembered fetuses.  I had previously
>thought that the Libertarian stand did not include 
>advocating the criminalization of abortion.  Was I wrong?
>Is there a split on this issue?

Gack!!

The official Party position is *still* AGAINST both the
criminalization of abortion and AGAINST tax-funding for abortion.
I'd call that position "pro-choice", which is part of why my personal
favorite Party sign reads "Libertarian Party: Pro-Choice on Everything".
If a candidate is calling her/him-self Libertarian and is using such
ads as you say, s/he can be (and ought to be) censured by the national
committee and possibly ejected from membership in the Party.

Yes, there is a vocal minority in the Party which is anti-abortion.
You may see the group name "Libertarians For Life" from time to time;
that's the only one I'm aware of, but there may be more.  Virtually
all of the ones I've met are good folks who just differ with us on
this point; I don't think any of them would stoop to this kind of
public advertising.

Are you sure that candidate is a Libertarian, and not a Republican who
somehow got him/herself listed under the Lib designation?  We've had
some problems in the past with non-Libs filing for our slots and
getting on the ballot in states with somewhat loose rules; perhaps
that's what happened here......

>
>Susan

--
        Robert Bickford                       rab@well.sf.ca.us
 Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party    /-------------------------------------\
      of Marin County (CA)        | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                                  \-------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman)
Subject: Re: Prominent Libertarians (was Re: An answer to one of David Sill's)
Organization: Photon Research Associates, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:59:01 GMT

Prominent libertarians not previously mentioned include Orson Bean and
Michelle Phillips, who were active in Ron Paul fundraisers, Dr. Demento,
who appeared at the 1987 national convention, Jerry Buss, who was quoted
in a fall 1988 article as saying that he was neither a Democrat nor a
Republican, but possibly Libertarian, and Edmonton businessman and
sports franchise owner Peter Pocklington, a leader of the Canadian "new
right" (which is controlled by Amway, not by the churches, up there, so
members of the New Right can be libertarians on moral issues).

Joe Naiman

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: [FWD]: LP Candidate barred from C-SPAN by police
Aparently-From: Tom Isenberg <tomis@microsoft.com>
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:08:07 GMT




* To: Release Distribution

NEWS RELEASE
St. Louis, Missouri

Local Contact: Steve Dasbach, David Carr - 314-330-2018

October 11, 1992
1:00 PM CST

                   LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
                     BARRED FROM C-SPAN INTERVIEW BY
                           ST. LOUIS POLICE

ST. LOUIS -- Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Andre Marrou, who
has been excluded from participation in the first Presidential Debates
tonight in St. Louis, today was barred by St. Louis Police from entering the
studio of C-SPAN for an 11:30 am interview and viewer call-in program.

Andre Marrou, who is on the ballot in all 50 states, had been scheduled to
appear on C-SPAN to discuss his exclusion from this evening's debates.  As
Marrou and C-SPAN interviewer Geoffrey Baum approached the C-SPAN
interview studio, they were blocked by St. Louis county police officers.  In
spite of Mr. Baum's verification of the scheduled interview, and in spite of
statements by a debate commission member that Mr. Marrou could be
permitted inside of the police lines, the police officers refused admission.

Hundreds of supporters of the Libertarian Party candidate have assembled
in St. Louis to protest Mr. Marrou's exclusion from the debates.  At 3:00
pm on campus, there will be a march demonstrating that Mr. Marrou is the
only candidate on the ballot in every state who will not be in this evening's
debate.  From 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm, Marrou supporters will demonstrate
outside the debate site at Washington University.

                                - END -

--
Joe Dehn - via FidoNet node 1:104/418
INTERNET: jwd3@dehnbase.fidonet.org

--

 delisle@eskimo.celestial.com | Nothing is fool-proof, fools are too ingenious.
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: >>>Why should I vote for Marrou?
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:08:20 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Originator: lando@tango


 >>  I prefer "republicrats" as it rolls better.

>  Besides which, it breaks down so nicely into a descriptive phrase --
>Republic-rats.

>  Politics: from "poly" (many) + "ticks" (little bloodsucking parasites)

Or for another play on words "Demoncrats".  Hope they are exercised
on the first Tuesday in November.


-- 
"Read my lips, 'No more statism.'"  - George Bush, NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Cable TV
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:36:47 GMT

Everyone seems to be saying, "I'm paying too much for cable," yet they don't 
cancel their cable.  Can anyone tell me why?
--Ray Cote  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Please let Marrou debate! -- and CNN's Crossfire
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:41:34 GMT


The Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in PA is (loudly)
anti-abortion.  He's running the controversial ads which
show pictures of dismembered fetuses.  I had previously
thought that the Libertarian stand did not include 
advocating the criminalization of abortion.  Was I wrong?
Is there a split on this issue?

Susan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: voting conscience
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 21:54:38 GMT

fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>Voting one's conscience is a morally good thing.
>
>Yet, if the results are bad, perhaps the action should be avoided.
>
>Voting for anyone but Clinton helps GHWB stay in office.
>
>yikes
>

Voting for anyone but Andre Marrou will help all the Democrats and
Republicans in office.

Yikes.

-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
 'Cause I can see the future, and it's a place....about 70 miles east of here.
--------------------------{dave@bradley.bradley.edu}---------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 17:57:22 GMT


In article <1992Oct9.015404.26954@leland.Stanford.EDU>, adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:

> This is the classic exapmle for government intervention.

I should respond to this more simply.  Even your example shows
exactly what I've been trying to say from the beginning:

Profit *is* the measure of how much room for improvement there
is in a given market.  If there is no profit to be made, there
is no room for improvement.

This is the point that Mike Huben and Douglas Parvin seem to
be denying and which I've been trying to get them to understand.

thant
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Utopia is not an option
Date: 7 Oct 1992 18:32:12 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Oct7.095807.963@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>The point is that Libertaria has far fewer problems than today's
>political system.

It's much easier to count the warts on a real person than on a ficticious
character.

Presuming, of course, that agreement was reached between libertarians and
others as to what warts (problems) were.

And are the problems comparable?

Doubtless libertaria would have a whole slew of emergent properties that
cause unexpected problems, just as happened in the creation of the United
States.  We're lucky that our experiment worked: lots of others (such as
the French) didn't.

How can you make such a ludicrous claim?

Mike Huben

"Utopias now appear much more realizable than one used to think.  We are now
faced with a different new worry: How to prevent their realization."
						Nicolas Berdiaeff
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: >A question for Steven Soar
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:47:27 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

I agree, anyone taking out a 100 year loan is in a bad situation.
A professor mentioned this to me several years ago and I found it
appalling.   It is ironic that such a wealthy nation has very
expensive housing.   Does anyone out there really know the reason why?

-- 
"Read my lips, 'No more statism.'"  - George Bush, NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian