HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Libertrians and the environment, info
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:44:55 GMT

In article <l6od01INNa0@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 25021@shearson.com, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>>No. I didn't call you a socialist. I called the school system
>>socialist. Tell me, given that the school system operates with
>>government money and government cirriculum selection, what other
>>definition of it would fit?
>>
>
>As are the courts, police, and defense?

Being an anarchist, yes. There are libertarians who want to maintain a
minimal government that supports courts, police and defense; I see no
reason to maintain those services in a socialized manner when purely
market based mechanisms can supply them. However, we are getting off
topic, and besides, not all libertarians would agree with me on this
point.

>
>> If the
>>current governmental system is scrapped, obviously we will no longer
>>be functioning under the current judicial system. Either way, you
>>should have been able to guess it.
>>
>
>It's not obvious. You have still not put forward a better way of selecting,
>employing, and firing judges. In the absence of a proposed superior system 
>I must assume you will use the current system or make minor changes which will
>preserve the essential spirit of the current system.

As I've said, even if we used the current system judges don't have
absolute power because the laws they rule on and their powers are
defined by the congress. But never mind that; the point is that you
set up a strawman; you attacked a system that no one proposed.



--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
From: bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM (Kristian Skrinak)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Historical misunderstanding
Date: 31 Jul 1992 17:56:22 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg9.corp.sun.com


Thank you! Everyone on this group should re-read "Historical misunderstanding"
to reawaken a genuine understanding of what _individualism_ is. It is _not_
Libertarianism.

Liberaterianism is a flavor of individualism, not its basis.

Let's open alt.libertarian or net.libertarians or null.Libertarianism
and open this group up for some higher thought.

Kris :
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: childs@crchh342.bnr.ca (Bill Childs)
Subject: Test for Ken
Reply-To: childs@crchh342.bnr.ca (Bill Childs)
Organization: Bell Northern Research
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:58:27 GMT

Keywords: cushman

Hi Ken,

Can you read this you old mare.  It's a tough game or so I think !!
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Turning Japanese
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:06:01 GMT
Organization: SSRL, Stanford, CA

In article <l7dqp8INNnoh@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM (Kristian Skrinak) writes:
> 
> ...
> There are inherent reasons that putting the rights of the individual
> above those of society promotes a more productive system.  It is called
> the price system. The price system is the most effective economic
> communicator ever invented. So then, why is Japan so clearly more
> productive then we? Does their conformist society have a mechanism
> superior to the price system?
> 

I'm not sure I understand you. The Japanese use a price system pretty much
the same way as Americans do.

Why do I hear "Japan is so clearly more productive than we" all the time?
The fact is that in general this JUST IS NOT SO. In certain areas like
cars, this may be true. But when did you last ride in a Japanese-built
airliner?

All part of the propaganda to get the masses to embrace an "industrial
policy" I'll be bound.

There are certainly cultural differences. I for one was most impressed at
how well behaved school children are compared with American kids when I was
there.

Japan has historically been an isolated country, with a high population
density. A higher degree of conformity would be expected than in the
seafaring, low-population-density, bloody-minded, Anglo-Saxon countries.

The nail that sticks up gets hammered down, as the Japanese say.

Tony
From: bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM (Kristian Skrinak)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Turning Japanese
Date: 29 Jul 1992 23:54:29 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg9.corp.sun.com

Is this group concerned at all with the topic of individualism?

I am offended by the suggestion that Japanese conformity engenders
greater productivity. Denying that we are lagging behind the Japanese
recognize the essence of these newspaper articles.

In article 1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu, tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox) writes:
>In article <l7dqp8INNnoh@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM (Kristian Skrinak) writes:
>> ...
>> There are inherent reasons that putting the rights of the individual
>> above those of society promotes a more productive system.  It is called
>> the price system. The price system is the most effective economic
>> communicator ever invented. So then, why is Japan so clearly more
>> productive then we? Does their conformist society have a mechanism
>> superior to the price system?
>> 

>I'm not sure I understand you. The Japanese use a price system pretty much
>the same way as Americans do.

Please re-read "Turning Japanese". My exact point was that in fact we both
use the price system. My theory was that we percieve it differently,
specifically the Japanese seem to percieve it through LTG.

>
>Why do I hear "Japan is so clearly more productive than we" all the time?
>The fact is that in general this JUST IS NOT SO. In certain areas like
>cars, this may be true. But when did you last ride in a Japanese-built
>airliner?
>
>All part of the propaganda to get the masses to embrace an "industrial
>policy" I'll be bound.
>

Hmmm. You really didn't read my post. My point was that there have been
several articles in the press lately on the problems of individualism 
with respect to American productivity, all concluding that individualism
is the cause of the decline in US productivity. This is quite directly
an argument in favor of industrial policy. I am pointing out the specious
nature of this argument.

Do you argue that the USA is more competitive than the Japan? It would be
pointless to site statistics. This seems more like gross denial.



From: chan@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Chan Benson)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:56:14 GMT
Subject: Re: International wage control (was Re: Libertarian history)
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

> >Can you define "freedom" in completely objective terms?
> 
> Yes. As a term of art, it means the situation in which no one
> initiates force against you. Thats it. Very simple.

What is force? I was born against my will; does that mean I am not
free?

Existence is not so simple.

> Yes, but you can't even give an approximately objective definition for
> "fair". 

Ummm. How about "the situation in which no one initiates force against
you". Does that sound fair?

> That brings something else up: what right do people have to try to
> experiment with MY life? "Designing" a society seems like a fairly
> scummy enterprise only engaged in by megalomaniacs. Unfortunately,
> there seems to be no shortage of such individuals.

"Designing" was not my term. I prefer to think of it as imagining what
kind of world I'd like to live in and then working to make it happen.
Unfortunately, it has to include selfish folk like yourself.

			-- Chan
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:10:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.164330.800@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy  
Beatty) writes:

> But all too recent history proves that it's not true. The reality of the
> South in the 1950s is that there often was no one else that would sell to
> Blacks.  

I keep hearing these statements used but the logic escapes me.  Business men go  
where the profit is.  The discrimination came from the laws and the threat (and  
in some cases the act) of violence, both of which are antithetical to  
libertarian values. As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, businesses often tried to  
ignore the Jim Crow laws until forced by the government to obey them.

--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 1992 23:24:51 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 23453@gordian.com, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.183932.520@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>>  Which is to say that the only way people will obey is at the
>muzzle of a gun. How, um, misanthropic. Pardon me as I barf.

OK, here's a bag. Barf away. If people are so, um, angelic,
why have laws at all?

>Libs do not deny that people can be bad, but the wholesale 
>condemnation of man to be some sort of animal to be herded
>by the state, since we are evil by nature, is a bit too much
>to take.

There's as much evidence to support our evilness by nature
as our goodness. I have always though of prisons as animal pens
with cops playing the farmer. You're right. Prisons should go.

>  For better or worse, if we are to have a society which is 
>not a slave pen we must work off of the assumption that man
>has the potential of being rational. 

I'm not sure if you are an engineer, but if you are, do you use
the same system design principles as you advocate above? Do you
design to the tolerances how you wish things behaved, or do you
design to how things actually work in practice?
If the former you must not be a good engineer. No offense meant.
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 24 Jul 1992 18:16:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 318@NOC.Vitalink.COM, rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan) writes:
>In article <nlknne0@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>To libertarians, individuals are _always_ significant.   It is the
>statists and collectivists who believe in oppressing the individual in
>the name of "the common good" ("common" and "good" as defined by the
>collectivist based on his own biases.)
>

In a system it's not important how libertarians believe unless the system
as a whole primarily consists of libertarians. It doesn't. So what matters
is how the current system reacts to individuals, not how it should in some
hypothetical idealized system. 


>I'd like to incinerate one straw-man I've seen getting pummelled around
>here lately.   Just because libertarians don't believe in forcing people
>to interact with (fill in the group) doesn't mean they approve of such
>discrimination, or that they would practice it, or that they would do
>anything besides spit on a person who practices it.
>

Then should agree with the following: I don't personally believe in robbery,
and will spit on people who rob, but I still don't believe in using force
to stop robbers. If the market is allowed to prosper there will be no need
for people to steal so we should not make laws against stealing. Let the market
stop thievery. If someone wishes to capture the thief they can hire a private 
search agency (afterall, why should I pay to find your property?), one of many 
that will surely start in a truly free economy, find the thief, and then sue the 
thief for damages.

Xref: sparky alt.individualism:4636 alt.politics.marrou:233
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Nonination for LP Mascot
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:14:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.individualism
Organization: SSRL, Stanford, CA

> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>> > chrispi@microsoft.com (Chris Pirih) writes:
>> >
>> > Do the Libertarians have a mascot?  Is anybody using the
>> > bull moose?
>> 
>> How about the "Don't tread on me" copperhead?
> 

Hows about the axolotl?
Most people have never heard of it, and those who have are not exactly
sure what it is ;-)

Tony
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.politics.marrou
From: goldm@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold)
Subject: Re: Libertarian party animal?
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
	<1992Jul19.130355.6149@access.digex.com>
	<1992Jul20.123343.6831@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1992Jul24.175833.5134@Cadence.COM>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:10:42 GMT

Has noone considered the bald eagle? For a party that puts civil liberties
and freedoms first, it seems rather obvious.
--
Mitchell Gold, sundance@rpi.edu
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:23:34 GMT
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 711836847@cancun, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>No, a gun doesn't put me on equal footing with the massive powers of
>_your_ state.  Transplanting the current bloated government into a
>libertarian society just doesn't work.  In that case, we'd indeed have
>severe lack of freedom - sort of like now.
>-- 

I do sympathise, but it is _our_ state. Unless you plan on moving we
need to create a reasonable plan to make it better. Because most
people will not accept libertarian philosophy there needs to be a compromise.
I see the compromise as using libertarian philosphy to guide *how* things
get done, and compromising with the liberal agenda to guide some of *what*
gets done. I know this probably seems like an eclectic heresy to you,
but I think it's the most pragmatic, not idealistic, way of making
things better. I can't see any benifit in taking a "morally" correct
position if it won't change a damn thing.
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:4509 talk.politics.misc:35653 alt.activism:13374
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:53:54 GMT
Followup-To: alt.individualism
Organization: SSRL, Stanford, CA

In article <MATT.92Jul23124358@physics.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
# In article <scottj-230792150731@iamac-1.georgetown.edu> scottj@gumedlib.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:
# 
## did, another insurance company would be insane not to take advantage
## of the situation and offer you (and *millions* like you) a contract
## with no such clause.  This goes double in a libertarian society with
## no government mandated insurance where insurance companies would be
## forced by the market to provide maximal services for minimal fees.
## An insurance company in such a marketplace would be committing
## suicide if even a small percentage of their potential customers
## refused to sign their bizarre contract.
# 
# An interesting theory.  Maybe even a true one.  Still, I'm a
# physicist, and I like to see empirical evidence for theories.  Has
# this actually been the case in societies with pervasive racism?  In
# such societies, has economic competition between insurance companies
# actually worked to eliminate the damage done by that racism?  
# 
# A related question: free-market economics makes a certain set of
# simplifying assumptions about human behavior.  What is the evidence
# that humans actually do behave in this way?  And if, as I believe to
# be the case, these assumptions turn out to be a poor approximation to
# the way that humans actually do behave, how does this affect the
# conclusions that are based on those assumptions?

Two interesting questions.
The US has been (and to a certain extent still is) a society with pervasive
racism. Does anyone know of any domestic insurance companies who had racist
clauses in their contracts and what happened to them?

But what, exactly, are the assumptions about human behaviour made by
free-market economics? I cannot think of any except the trivial one upon
which all economics is based - that people want to trade.

Conversely, non-free-market economics DOES make at least one assumption about
human behaviour - it assumes that people will do what they are told.

-- Tony
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:31:44 GMT

tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>In article 711766687@cancun, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>>I don't want to go back to living in a society where people can be denied
>>>a life.
>>
>>You live in one right now.

>This predictable turn of phrase is used quite often by libertarians.

Hmmm, and I noticed after I posted it that a liberal did the same thing.


>Is your life really that horrible? You all sound so tortured.
>[ blah blah ]

Why don't you read what was posted?  A society where people can be
denied a life.  There's no denying that we live in a society like
that.  Nothing in there about bad conditions, horrible depressions, or
anything else.
-- 
He parked his head and forgot where he left it.
From: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:18:28 GMT
Reply-To: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corp.  (Standard disclaimer of course)

In article <l6trrfINN78f@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM 
(Todd Hoff) writes:


>>> There's as much evidence to support our evilness by nature
>>> as our goodness. I have always though of prisons as animal pens
>>> with cops playing the farmer. You're right. Prisons should go.
>>
>>"Our evilness by nature..."   Interesting notion.  Let's follow it for
>>a bit.
>>
> 
> To follow we need a leader.

No, it's also possible to follow a wild goose.  And your argument is
chasing one at high speed.

> Your lack of insight into metaphysics disqualifies
> you as one. And as usual difficult points are ignored for less taxing
> topics.

Specify.   I hadn't noticed you bringing up any difficult points.  If you
will show me exactly what impresses _you_ as difficult, I'll address the
issue.

From here, it looks like _you_ ignored the main point of the article you
are quoting.   And just in case you didn't like the way I presented it,
could you explain why you ignored the same point when several other folks
brought it up?

   ---   Rick

    *** I'm from the government and I'm here to help you ***
From: wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:02:02 GMT
Organization: Apple

In article <l6rkemINN3fg@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
> 
> Because most
> people will not accept libertarian philosophy there needs to be a compromise.
> I see the compromise as using libertarian philosphy to guide *how* things
> get done, and compromising with the liberal agenda to guide some of *what*
> gets done. I know this probably seems like an eclectic heresy to you,
> but I think it's the most pragmatic, not idealistic, way of making
> things better. I can't see any benifit in taking a "morally" correct
> position if it won't change a damn thing.

I'm a Libertarian, and I agree with you.  A Libertarian Revolution is not
going to happen in the current political and social climate -- things have
not yet gotten bad enough.

I view your proposal as a very libertarian one.  When libertarian solutions
are applied in a few areas and people see that they really do work better,
people will demand more libertarian solutions in more areas.

This is the market at work, a very libertarian concept!

The ISIL newsletter had an interesting article about the Reform Party of
Canada, saying that it has a very libertarian platform.  According to the
article, the Reform Party is growing incredibly fast.  Maybe we in the U.S.
will have the example of a libertarian-oriented government to the north!

Are there any Canadians reading this?  Can you post something about Reform?

John Wilkes   <wilkes@apple.com>
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:10:39 GMT
Organization: SSRL, Stanford, CA

In article <1992Jul23.231714.16273@leland.Stanford.EDU>, dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
# In article <1992Jul23.145354.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox) writes:
##
## But what, exactly, are the assumptions about human behaviour made by
## free-market economics? I cannot think of any except the trivial one upon
## which all economics is based - that people want to trade.
##
## Conversely, non-free-market economics DOES make at least one assumption about
## human behaviour - it assumes that people will do what they are told.
# 
# Come on now. Libertarianism makes the exact same assumption. Poor
# people are told they can't take the property of the wealthy even
# if they think that wealth was attained unjustly. I don't think
# they'll be any more likely to listen to this than people in
# command economies listen to the central planners.
# 

I take it that you dont have a problem with my analysis of economics and
human behaviour....

Libertarianism makes the assumption that people will do what they are
told? Seems an odd sort of phrase to associate with libertarianism.

"Poor people are told they can't take the property of the wealthy"?
Libertarianism doesn't "tell" the poor any such thing. You are putting
a strange slant onto "Thou shalt not steal", which is not a commandment
exclusive to libertarians.

Perhaps you wish to deassociate the converse - wealthy stealing from
the poor - with the libertarian position. A common theme with non-libs
on a.i tries to associate libertarianism with wealth and ripping off the
underdog. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The only thing that libertarians attempt to `tell' people is that they
should not initiate force. They don't assume people will do as they are
told - if they did, then all that would be needed would be to get the
word out, and then nirvana would follow.

You have a problem with that? 
If you do, then perhaps you could explain when you think it is appropriate
to initiate force. If you are poor and you think your wealthy neighbour
got his wealth unjustly perhaps?

-- Tony Cox
-- "One mans tax dodge is another mans free round of drinks" - Auberon Waugh
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: childs@crchh342.bnr.ca (Bill Childs)
Subject: news test
Keywords: cushman
Reply-To: childs@crchh342.bnr.ca (Bill Childs)
Organization: Bell Northern Research
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:35:47 GMT




Final test of this news facility........
Newsgroups: alt.individualism