HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: parvin1@husc10.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:28:11 GMT

helgeu@dhhalden.no (Helge Rene Uholm) writes:

>wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee) writes:

>>Question to the "anarcho"-capitalists and "libertarians" at large:

>>Whence the seemingly unshakeable faith in the inability of the private
>>sector to coerce?

>>Seems to me in a buyers' market or sellers' market the sellers or
>>buyers respectively get the short end of the deal.  Market leverage is
>  
>   The assumption that one of them must get the short end is wrong. If you are 
>feeling that you are loosing on a deal you wont do the deal. Thats it.

>helgeu@dhhalden.no

That's assuming, of course, that it's a viable option not to do any deals...

-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:40:34 GMT
 <BvpDnL.so@encore.com> <1992Oct6.114239.16115@husc3.harvard.edu> <BvpyLL.Bwu@encore.com>

rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:

>parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>>No, that's not what I mean.  There is a real immediate cost to enter a market,
>>higher for some markets than for others.  It's entirely possible that this
>>cost exceeds the value of ALL projected future profit.  So it's not a small
>>profit in the future, but rather a net loss.  The further away each
>>projected profit, the less it's worth.  A little common sense should let
>>you see that this series must be convergent, otherwise all ventures would
>>have an infinite immediate value.  What you say holds true in most cases,
>>but can break down in markets with high start-up costs.

>If the start-up costs are so high that someone cannot start-up and still
>turn a profit enough to justify the start-up, at current prices, then
>the prices are not too high.  That simple.  In other words, your
>hypothetical is not valid, in general.

That's a moral judgement that many would disagree with.  If an entrenched
company has been the sole provider of a commodity for quite awhile, and
is making an extremely large profit relative to other industries then
many would say that this is a short-coming of the market system.    
Now I certainly can't argue with your conclusion if you DEFINE "not too
high" to be any price not above the market.  But to use that definition
to support a free market is circular and meaningless.

So, if the start-up costs are such that competition won't occur, and if
the entrenched company is making relatively enormous profits, I don't
see any moral problem with regulation or subsidized entrance for competition.
Of course, these programs might not work.  But maybe they would.

>That's not to say that Libertarionism would allow everyone to afford heat,
>but neither does what we have today.  Remember, utopia is not an option.

I certainly don't forsee a utopia under any system, but I think it's
reasonable to try to see what works best.  If it's a completely free market,
so be it... but I don't buy some of the moral lines supporting it.

>Besides, I live in South Florida.  Who needs heat? :)

I live in Cambridge, MA, so I guess we're both kin of biased ;-)
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
From: clarkmi@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Michael Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:20:46 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept

My compliments to the participants on what has got to be one of the
longest, most involved, most voluminous Usenet arguments I've ever
seen.  But then I haven't been on the net very long.

My question is this:  why do Libertarians favor a voucher system 
that still involves the coercive appropriation of taxes from the
citizenry for the funding of educational insitutions?  Why not
advocate a completely free market in education, without any 
government involvement?

Here in Oregon, voters passed Ballot Measure 5, which limited property
taxes and has cramped the spending style of our state bureaucracy.  I've
noted (primarily in the impact on the local college) that many of the
cuts that have been made have been "meat" (visible programs from which
the public or students can be said to have benefitted) while very little
of the "fat" (layers of bureaucrats) has been trimmed.  This suggests
a radical thought experiment:  Suppose tomorrow, your local school
district announced that there wasn't enough funding and it was shutting
down its operation completely.  What would happen?

				Michael Clark
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Keywords: snowball's chance
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:27:21 GMT

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.

It might take twenty years to pay off, but voting for the minisculely
lesser evil doesn't pay off at all.

                                       ---Nancy Lebovitz
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:21:50 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In article <ISBELL.92Oct4103839@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
}Well, if Mark Wilson is a libertarian then there's one.  I'd be
}interested to know other libs who do.  I would have thought it an
}obvious derivation fromt he central positions.
}
}Of course, Libs aren't Objectivists.


As the one who started this idiocy, let me chime in once again.

I was wrong, I admit it.  Many (most?) do favor the elimination of anti-trust.
I have had a rather extensive lesson through e-mail on this subjet lately.

Now that I have been properly chastised, I will add that I to no longer
favor anti-trust.  But it isn't something that I feel is worth fighting
about.  Maybe later after some other big battles have been won.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:02:07 GMT

parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>1) They pay the price. The cost can be bourne, by cutting back elsewhere.
>2) They can't afford to leave.  There are other costs besides heat.
>3) Not much they can afford to start up besides a fire in the fireplace.
>4) The market is such that the cost of entrance and the resultant competition
>exceed the limit of the projected long-term profits, which are, of course
>discounted more and more the further into the future we go.

>The argument that any high-profit area will soon be overflowed with competition
>willing to look for long-term gain ignores the lesser value attatched to
>future money by all "good capitalists."

You assume that consumers do not consider the reputation of the supplier.
Responsible consumers will pay a little more to the supplier that
didn't gouge them during the previous winter.

The other argument about the time value of money just doesn't make sense.
The potential competitor won't compete if he can make more money faster
somewhere else?  So what.  If he won the lottery, he might stop working
all together.  If the gouger is making such high profits, there will
certainly be several entrepenuers not making as much, even considering
the time value of money.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:04:30 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <parvin1.718327804@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu writes:


> The argument that any high-profit area will soon be overflowed with
> competition willing to look for long-term gain ignores the lesser value
> attatched to future money by all "good capitalists."

Although future money is devalued, it isn't completely devalued.  In
fact, it is typically devalued by only 3% a year or so.  So you are
3% per year right.

thant
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Homestead votes to ban mobile homes
Summary:  How to perpetuate homelessness in the wake of Andrew
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:48:39 GMT

In article <Bv8uI2.G5y@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>After being hit by the worst hurricane of the century, mobile home
>residents (most former due to damage) are still not informed/educated
>enough to make their own decision about whether to live in a mobile home
>again or not. At least that's what the Homestead commissioners voted
>last week: a one year moratorium on mobile homes while the city analyzes
>whether the ban should be permanent.

This is idiotic!  Southern Florida could be rebuilt rapidly with
hurricane-resistant manufactured homes.  There are hundreds of
thousands of people made homeless by Andrew, and now they will
remain homeless, because a bunch of upper-middle-class commissioners
want to impose their prejudices on everybody else.  Of course, since
they don't mention the homeless in this law the homeless aren't involved
and I'm raising a straw man, right?  Not!  Civilization is a whole system.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
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 22:53:01 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <ISBELL.92Sep25211132@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:

> |In this way well-
> |run educational programs are expanded upon and badly-run ones are 
> |weeded out.  It is exactly the mechanism by which education will
> |constantly be improving itself.

> I really don't see any reason for this to happen one way or the other.
> Unless you address the problem of where the kids who want to leave
> some school and go to a "better" one go while they're waiting, it seems
> to me that they'll just stay where they are and nothing will happen.

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.

> Good schools are made up of many things, including competent faculty.
> If a good school is to "expand" it must find some faculty which are
> going to have to come from somewhere.  If they're already out there
> why aren't the other schools "good"?  Is it the students?  The
> parents?  In either case, vouchers aren't going to deal with *that*
> problem.

Typically, it's a combination of the teachers and the administrations.  
Why do you think all school communities will necessarily be equally 
competent?  The same is clearly not true of, say, the people in the
public works department that plow the snow -- the difference from town
to town is strikingly visible.  Why should the schools be any different?  

It's as silly to believe that every town MUST have its own school system 
as to believe that it must have its own movie theatre or automobile
dealership.

> Honestly, I just don't see what vouchers can do.  It seems to me that
> the real reform that's necessary can happen either with or without
> them.

Vouchers free up the captive customers and eliminate the town monopoly.
-- 

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...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: secsu@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ralph O. Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Education (Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.)
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:40:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <qe8fnb8@zola.esd.sgi.com>, thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes...
> 
>Following are two articles.  The first describes a school-choice 
>system implemented in East Harlem, and the second describes the
>results of Polly William's experiment in vouchers in Milwaukee.
> 
> 
>thant
> 
>-------------------------------
> 
>Subject: Harlem Schools - Choice Works!

[article deleted]

> 
>  Inner City Kids: Why Choice Is Their Only Hope
>  by A. Polly Williams, State Representative, Wisconsin
> 
[article deleted]

The article refers to the school year 1990-1991. When was it written?
Does anyone out there know how the Milwaukee experiment is going now?

Ralph
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:14:55 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Oct2111635@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>|I don't know of any libertarians who support the elimination of anti-trust
>|laws.  Except maybe the extreme anarchist wing.
>
>I do.  I just asked one:
>
>ME:  Are you a Libertarian?
>HE:  Yes.
>ME:  Do you support the repeal of anti-trust laws?
>HE:  Yes.
>
>Of course, he may be of the extreme anarchist wing (as opposed to the
>non-extreme anarchist wing).  Wait, I'll ask him.
>
>ME:  Do you consider yourself a part of the extreme anarchist wing?
>HE:  No, I'm not an anarchist.
>
>Oh, well. (I swear, this just happened as I typed it in--punctuation
>mine).
>
><insert smilies and apologies for wasting bandwidth>
>
Actually, I've never heard of a libertarian who _did_ support anti-
trust legislation. If there's one here, would you please post about
it?

                              Thanks,
                              Nancy Lebovitz
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Education (Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.)
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:15:46 GMT
	<9369@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
	<ISBELL.92Sep29135346@panther.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep30.042955.3564@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu's message of 30 Sep 92 04:29:55 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
|}Maybe I'm not asking the questions right.  One of the things that
|}worries me is that some of the "choice"  proponents haven't really
|}thought this thru:  evaluate, if you don't mind, how these various
|}choices and approaches to the problems above will actually change the
|}current distribution beyond "the Free Market(tm) will just make it
|}work".  After ten years, will we basically have the same set of school
|}options with the kids who have it worse now having it worse then?
|}What are the short term costs?  The long term benefits?

|After ten years, there'll be across-the-board improvements by such measures
|as performance tests.  I'd bet money on this.  Innovative schools with diverse
|managerial structure and curricula will arise.

Hmmmm.

|}What are the *REAL* problems with our education system.  From where do
|}they come?  Do vouchers, choice or whatever address all of these?
|}None of these? Some of these?  Does it provide us with the same system
|}at lower cost?  A better system for more money?  Will it in all
|}likelihood increase the average but widen the range?

|The funamental problem is that there's no rational basis for determining the
|allocation of resources such as supplies, teachers, etc., since there's no
|market pricing.  Vouchers do, indeed, address this.  We'll have a better
|system of schooling at a lower cost.

I'm not sure I get you--could you elaborate?

|}What are they?  In the real world, why would I care to vote
|}libertarian if they are mroe concerned with the theory than the
|}practice?  Ready to accept in free market approach as an end unto
|}itself without worry of the impact or the methods for phasing the new
|}systems in?

|It's not that we accept laissez-faire as an end in itself, but that you're
|asking us to predict the unpredictable.

Well, that hasn't stopped anyone :-).

By the way, from where do the vouchers come?  Local taxes? State taxes?
Federal taxes?



--
Peace.
                             "You get your freedom by letting your enemy know
                              that you'll do anything to get your freedom; then
                              you'll get it. It's the only way you'll get it."
                                                  -- Malcolm X
                                   -\--/-
    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.society.anarchy
From: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: antitrust
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:59:10 MDT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <qjdi5o0@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>And if you look back in history, this is what you see.  The monopolies
>that survived without or with little assistance in the form of government
>intervention did so by constantly lowering prices, not (as is often
>claimed) by lowering them to drive everybody out of business, and then
>subsequently raising them again.  For example, the price of oil during
>the Standard Oil "monopoly" fell from more than $2 per gallon in the
>early 1860s to approximately six cents per gallon at the time Standard
>Oil was taken to court in 1907.  They had also constantly lost market
>share without the 'help' of government.  Standard Oil's market share had
>dropped to approximately 64% by 1907.  The same pattern can be seen with
>the price of aluminum and the Alcoa 'monopoly.'

Ok, now I have a few questions.  Are monopolies in a libertarian society
good or bad?  Are they something that will happen in a libertarian society,
or are they something that is impossible to exist without government help?

Different libertarians seem to have very different views on these issues.
I imagine getting rid of government support of the idea of 
"corporations" could make monopolies much more difficult...        

----
"Dwayne Dibly?!" - The Cat (I've seen 5th season.  Have you?)
----
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Subject: Why does the LP want to pull out of the UN?
Originator: lando@tango
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:01:08 GMT

From alt.politics.libertarian Mon Sep 28 08:58:05 1992
Xref: cirrus sci.space:20240 talk.politics.space:1772 alt.politics.marrou:1731 alt.politics.libertarian:351
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Date: 28 Sep 92 07:43:29 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

 (ken bell) writes:
}
}Does the libertarian party support US withdrawl from the UN?
}//////////////////////////////////////
}/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
}//////////////////////////////////////

>Tim Starr Replies:
>Yep.

-- 
"He is the best friend of American liberty who is most sincere and active
 in promoting pure and undefiled religion." John Witherspoon, signer of the
 Declaration of Independence.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:610 alt.society.anarchy:373
From: asp+@cs.cmu.edu (James Aspnes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: You can't, and shouldn't TRY, to control the economy.
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:39:39 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct5.194528.9357@netcom.com> rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:
>So many threads argue that the economy can be controlled, then proceed to
>argue about which direction to aim it.
>
>The idea that we can make improvements in a natural system such as the economy
>is ludicrous.

I guess you don't like hospitals much, either.
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Homestead votes to ban mobile homes
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 15:46:50 GMT

After being hit by the worst hurricane of the century, mobile home
residents (most former due to damage) are still not informed/educated
enough to make their own decision about whether to live in a mobile home
again or not.  At least that's what the Homestead commissioners voted
last week: a one year moratorium on mobile homes while the city analyzes
whether the ban should be permanent.

The vote has to be taken one more time at the second hearing to become
law.

Any comments?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian