HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:58:42 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1b7ic6INN56n@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com writes:

> In article <qshq1po@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
> >
> >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.  [...]
> >
> 
> Markets are extremely derivative creations of people.  They are shaped by
> geography, geology, accidents of history, technology, fashion, weather, law,
> etc.  If there is no profit to be made, some of those factors can be changed
> and presto: there is room for "improvement".  ("Improvement" is the loaded
> term libertarians use to mean moving towards an equilibrium.)  [...]

First, governments area also extremely derivative creations of people.
The difference between the market and the government is that the
government has the monopoly in the use of institutionalized coercion.
Your job, then, is to show how the use of institutionalized coercion can
better the market in providing for human needs.  So far, you haven't even
come close to doing so.

Second, again, you conveniently ignore the cost of changing those factors
to ("presto") bring about room for improvement.  This is typical economic
blabber-speak to hide the costs of government intervention under amorphous
taxation and etherial regulation and pretend they don't exist.

Third, if you had actually read the article that I came into this thread
with (the one containing the Mises quote), you would know that I (and
real free-market advocates) would never use arguments based on
equilibrium conditions to defend the free-market.  I was responding to a
contrived example (that did assume the existence of equilibrium
conditions) which supposedly demonstrated a theoretical justification for
government intervention in the case of monopoly profits.  I allowed for
the existence of equilibrium conditions because the example was refutable 
even on its own (fundamentally flawed) grounds.

On the other hand, it is in the interests of institutionalized coersion
to convince as many people as possible that the use of force by them
is actually a good thing.  You've been suckered.

thant
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:38:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Fwd: Education (Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian

In alt.politics.libertarian, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) 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.

doug
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: An answer to one of David Sill's questions
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:28:55 GMT

Dave Sill asks:

>Name some prominent Libertarians--CEO's, actors, writers, etc.

Comedian Tommy Chong (of Cheech and Chong fame) endorsed Brian Ryman, 
Libertarian candidate for Ohio Legislature (27th district) when he was in
Columbus a few months ago.  I'm not sure if that sends a positive message
or not, but it's something people do notice.  Guess what Tommy's #1 issue
is? :-) :-)

Frank Zappa tried to get the LP Presidential nomination in '88 if I remember 
correctly.

Mojo Nixon ("Elvis is everywhere! Elvis is everything!") is reputed to be a 
Libertarian (and I believe it--that man faces more censorship problems than 
Ice-T).  I don't have any first-hand information, but the people who tell me
so seem quite certain of it. ("Elvis eats boats! Elvis eats boats!")

Heh.  Fringe party?  Well...  MAYBE SO!

Steve Conley
Fringe Party Person in Black from OHIO!
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:49:49 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Oct9.014859.16191@husc3.harvard.edu>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu writes:

[ to Atit Dinkarrai Desai ]

> Thanks for your little example.  It's clearer than mine was, and I hope it
> convinces Thant that at least theoretically his beloved market can be
> inefficient in certain regards.

My point was never that the market could achieve 'ideal' conditions.  My
point was that there was no mechanism by which the government could do
better (which is what you and others implied).  Desai's example merely
demonstrated that the closer you get to 'ideal' conditions, the less
market incentive there is to improve them.  But it also demonstrated my
point in that if there is room for improvement, there is always profit to
be made, and therefore, no theoretical justification for government
intervention.

thant
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:11:48 GMT
Subject: Re: >Why Should I Vote for Marrou?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian

In alt.politics.libertarian, lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis) writes:

> I'm a capitalist.  Do you think Slick Willy is?

Probably, but maybe of a different sort.

> Marrou is the only candidate that can seriously speak of cutting government
> spending. He was instrumental in repealing state income tax
> in Alaska.  That's a record that I like.

And he has nice eyebrows too.

> 
> Last of all, I can use a clever .signature such as
> "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."

Certainly you are being ironic....

This is clever?


doug
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: larry@labrador.fishkill.ibm.com (Larry Pieniazek)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:36:17 GMT
Reply-To: lar@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM East Fishkill

In article <7256@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E
Soar) writes:

> Rate the following economies in order of gov intervention into
business (import
> restrictions, subsidization, direction a la industrial policy)
> 
> 1  US
> 2  Germany
> 3  Japan
> 
> Answer:
> 1  Japan (most intervention)
> 2  Germany
> 3  US  (least intervention)
> 

I don't think this is at all true. We have more laws, more taxes, and
more controls than either Germany OR Japan. In particular, Japan is quite
business friendly, with (until very recently) NO capital gains tax.
Contrast that to us, where we have a tax, regulation and or fee for
just about anything you care to name. The "NAFTA" is 2500 pages long,
just to cite a recent example. Even George Will, libertarian arch
nemesis, agrees that a real free trade agreement should be about
20 pages at the very most.

Also don't forget that there is both direct and indirect intervention.
The latter is things like sucking all the capital up, and subsidising other
countries by defending them. We are GREAT at that.

Given this background the rest of your post supports the libertarian
claim that there is indeed something wrong with the country.

-Lar

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','
`,` Democrat:    Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,`
`,` Republican:  Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems.  `,`
`,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems.        `,`
',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','

Marrou/Lord in '92

#include <std_disclaim.h>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Economic Discrimination in Libertaria:  banks
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:12:57 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Oct10085022@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>
>Question:  do studies like the following affect the (original) debate
>on the likelihood of economic discrimination in Libertaria absent
>anti-discrimination laws?
>
>-----
>info taken from the Boston Globe Friday October 9 1992:
>
>"Study shows racial bias in lending"
>
>A landmark study released Thursday shows that banks in Greater Boston
>discriminate against Black and Hispanic mortage applicants, offering
>the most damning evidence to date of racial hurdles facing minority
>homebuyers.


I don't think anyone denied that discrimination would occur in
Libertaria. In a case such as the one you describe, the libertarian
would note that the banks involved are somewhat less profitable
by lending to whites who are less creditworthy than certain non-whites.
Of course, the banks have decided informally that the price they are
paying in profitability is acceptable, which leaves the mortgage-seeking
non-white exactly nowhere.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: junhcho@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jun Han Cho)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: voucher system?
Date: 7 Oct 1992 07:00:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: planecrash.berkeley.edu
Summary: Explanation of ...


I was wondering if anyone could explain, to me, about the use of a voucher
system for education, ie how it would work, where we would get the money,
etc...

How would this system deal with discrimination?


Thanks very much for your replies,

Han,
junhcho@ocf.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Crack Babies
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:52:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.223450.25052@cirrus.com> lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis) writes:
}
}During the "debate" on Sunday night, all the candidates present stated
}categorically that they were in favor of the continued criminalization of
}drugs.
}
}Both Bush and Clinton made references to babies crippled because of their
}mothers were addicted to cocaine.   I understand the Libertarian position
}on the individual's use of narcotics, but would you Libertarians consider
}a mother's actions as criminal negligence if she gave birth to baby
}damaged by drugs?

Personally, I would, if this could be scientifically proven.  However, the
latest research shows that the "Crack-baby" meme is purely mythical, and
not scientific.


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
From: adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 02:59:26 GMT

In article <qsojuvc@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct9.014859.16191@husc3.harvard.edu>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu writes:
>
>[ to Atit Dinkarrai Desai ]
>
>> Thanks for your little example.  It's clearer than mine was, and I hope it
>> convinces Thant that at least theoretically his beloved market can be
>> inefficient in certain regards.
>
>My point was never that the market could achieve 'ideal' conditions.  My
>point was that there was no mechanism by which the government could do
>better (which is what you and others implied).  Desai's example merely
>demonstrated that the closer you get to 'ideal' conditions, the less
>market incentive there is to improve them.  But it also demonstrated my
>point in that if there is room for improvement, there is always profit to
>be made, and therefore, no theoretical justification for government
>intervention.
>
>thant
>
>

ad: DITTO.

The problem with my example is that it doesn't take all the other
things into account and is based on imprecise or false information.
Who knows the true demand curve?, etc. If there is opportunity for
improvement an entrepeneur WILL take everything into account 
because its his money on the line. If an entrepreneur ( a person
or organization) using his own money can't do it, I say it is not
feasible now.

This means that although inefficiencies exist, the current state of
technology and information, does not allow the inefficienies to be
removed; or in other words it would cost more to move to and remain in 
that proposed "solution" than the benefits.
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: The Electoral College
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:22:12 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Originator: lando@tango

Jeff Andle said:

<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
<...


Jeff brought up an issue that causes me to pose yet another question
that I hope the net can answer.What was the reasoning behind the
Electoral College?   I believe the Federalist Papers address this question,
but alas, I do not have a copy.  

-- 
"Read my lips, 'No more statism.'"  - George Bush, NOT!
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: voting conscience
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:42:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: voting conscience
Date: Mon Oct  5 13:43:37 1992

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
---------------------------

This is true only if all three of the following are true:

1.  I would otherwise vote for Bill Clinton

2.  I believe that my vote is likely to tip the balance in the election.

3.  I believe that a second Bush Administratio nwould be perceptably
worse than a Clinton Administration.

Since none of these things are true, the statement is false.
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: And to the Republic for which it stands....
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:16:30 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Originator: lando@tango

<========================================================================
<| 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

From Article V. Section 4
  The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
  Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of
  them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or
  of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened),
  against domestic violence.

Now from the American Heritage Dictionary:

republic n. 1. A government in which is the head of state is usually
a president.  2.  A country governed by the elected representatives
of its people.

A democracy, is different.  EVERYONE has a say in the laws.  I. e.
look at the ancient Greek city-states.   The freemen participated in
democracy.




-- 
"Read my lips, 'No more statism.'"  - George Bush, NOT!
Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:42:11 -0400 
From: Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: how do I sign up?
	<1992Oct13.195716.17429@rational.com>

I just recieved information from the Libertarian Party.  At the bottom
of the page it says "if you want to be a member send $25" and you get a
book etc. My question is this: Do you have to send $ to be a member of
the party? or are you considered a member if you have it on your voters
registration card?  What's the money for anyway?  I'm all for supporting
the party, but I can live without the book.
Help!
kb
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: KGO radio poll
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:24:50 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Originator: lando@ss2035

Jim Eason, a talk show host on KGO radio, has added Andre Marrou's
name to the list of candidates for a presidential telephone poll.
That's an improvement to 'undecided'.

-- 
"Read my lips, 'No more statism.'"  - George Bush, NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: NO on 9 fundraiser in Seattle (repost)
Followup-To: pnw.motss
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:33:02 GMT

This was reposted to alt.politics.libertarian to give the Libertarian
organizations in Washington the opportunity to gain some more publicity.
This is tomorrow, so you might want to act fast.  Please direct all
replies/inquiries to the contacts listed in the article.  I live in
Ohio and know absolutely nothing about the event.

Followups have been directed to pnw.motss to match the original article.

From csn!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!cs.uoregon.edu!ogicse!news.u
.washington.edu!uw-beaver!cs.ubc.ca!van-bc!nwnexus!seanews!georgere Fri Oct 16
16:22:24 EDT 1992
From: georgere@microsoft.com (George V. Reilly)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi,pnw.motss
Subject: Seattle: Boogie Against Bigots, Sat 17 Oct
Summary: Fundraising dance for No on 9
Keywords: Fundraiser OCA NoOn9 Seattle Dance
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:33:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: microsof.1992Oct15.203328.21511
Followup-To: pnw.motss
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
[Repost of a forwarded announcement of a Seattle fundraiser for No on 9]

    Well, if you have been wondering what you can do to battle the
    hatred and bigotry that has arisen in Oregon and sure to spread
    to Washington if it wins in Oregon then here is something that
    you can do and you don't even have to leave Seattle.

                            BOOGIE AGAINST BIGOTS

    A local group of people is sponsoring a fund raising event on
    Saturday, October 17th from 8 p.m. to Midnight (mark your
    calendars).  This is an event that you don't want to miss, not
    only is it an excellent opportunity to help fight the bigotry in
    Oregon it's also an excellent opportunity to have FUN.  So if
    you don't normally go out dancing and even if you do then you
    should plan to come out and kick up your heals or just come and
    meet people, better yet get a group of people to come with you
    so you'll be sure that there will be people you know.

    So what will take place you ask, basically it will be a "good
    ole fashion "no frills" dance party" to quote one of the
    organizers.  There will be a $5 suggested minimum donation at
    the door (of course if you give more no one will complain - all
    the money goes to that wonderful organization "No On 9").  Beer,
    wine and soft drink will also be available for a suggested
    donation ranging from $1 - $2.

        Where:  Seven Star Women's Kung Fu,
                1316 East Pine,
                Capitol Hill, Seattle

        When:   Saturday, October 17, 1992
                8 p.m. to Midnight

    All you need to do is show up at the door, give your donation
    then boogie your life away.  Mark your calendar now and watch
    for further details in the future.
________________
George V. Reilly   <GeorgeRe@Microsoft.Com>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:798 alt.politics.marrou:1562
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Please let Marrou debate! -- and CNN's Crossfire
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:20:03 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory

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?
|> 
|> Susan

Yes there is a pro-life group (Libertarians For Life) within the Lib party.
The reasoning is that the killing of an innocent child is a form of
aggression that is not consistant with libertarian ideals. I have only met
two libertarians face to face. Of these one was pro-life the other was not.

				mike

BTW. Doris Gordon of LFL has written some very good articles if you are
interested.