HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Labor Standard
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:51:01 GMT

In article <gfA9nCW00WB78IXn1p@andrew.cmu.edu> at15+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew Lewis Tepper) writes:
>Try this thought experiment:
>
>Fix the currency at 1 unit=1 hour of unskilled labor. To keep the system
>honest, the way to produce currency is to have an actual person do 1
>hour of labor (either needed labor or unneeded), and then to give him a
>newly minted currency unit. This isn't as crazy as it sounds: We now
>have people dig up gold from the ground and then (investors) just hold
>on to it. Also, we would have no limits on currency in circulation;
>anyone could do some unskilled labor and get currency from the
>government. One side effect would be that an implicit minimum wage would
>be in effect: 1 unit = 1 hour. What other side effects would this scheme
>have?
>
>More thought experiments to follow...
>
>Andy

	Interesting idea, however it depends on what you count as an hour
of unskilled labor.  A classic example is ditch digging.  If we assume a
guy with a shovel can move 180 cu. ft. of dirt / hr; does a guy with a
tractor (say 5400 cu. ft of dirt / hr) get 30 units pay?

--JMB


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 08:05:17 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Dec16.123301.14776@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>In article <#FT=a2-@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.193448.4741@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>>
>>>2 - For a currency to be backed in oil.  You must have the right to trade
>>>both ways.  As one of the gold standard people said:
>>>$35 - gets a barrel of oil.
>>>a barrel of oil - gets $35.
>>>
>>
>>...and anyone who wants to convert a goodly sum of money has to bring a 
>>tanker truck. The whole *point* of a standard (or one of the points,
>>actually) is so that people who lack confidence in the issuing body can
>>easily convert money back and forth.
>>
>>-- 
>>__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
>
>	Why is it that you time and time again refuse to accept the
>existence of commodity certificates and insist on pretending like people
>actual have to cary oil around.  Recently a large chunk of IBM was sold at
>the NYSE do you think that they picked up Poughkipse NY carried over to
>the exchange building on Wall Street and sold it?!
>	Stop with silly tanker stuff.

Because in that case, you're just shifting faith in one body to another.
If you convert your "oilbucks" to futures contracts on the exchange, then
you're withdrawing your faith in the government, but taking faith in
the commodity exchange. If said exchange folds up, you're up a creek...
which could very, very well happen, if all currency was backed by oil
and there was a panic. When you buy shares in IBM, all you've got is
a piece of paper saying that you own X% of IBM. If NYSE suddenly folds,
you've got a very serious problem.

A good store of value, in order to both promote confidence and accomodate
those who have no confidence, must be portable.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Gold Standard for Libertarians
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:42:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I notice in the platform that the NLP is advocating the gold
standard. Why don't they do the libertarian thing and have no
national currency? Have banks and private institutions 
provide their own currencies. 
 
Virtually,

Edmund J. Ryan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Gold v. Oil: Backed Currency
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:56:10 GMT

In article <LdS=lS@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>For this reason, it doesn't really matter if someone controls the supply
>of whatever commodity is backing currency... as long as whoever stands
>behind the currency (in this case, the government) has an equivalent amount
>in storage to back all outstanding currency.

ok, i will gladly accept your defence of gold over oil as a backing
commodity. what i don't get is the paragraph above.
i will use the same example that i used on the "oil-backer" in another
post. maybe you can clarify this for both cases.

i claim that the problem with having a gold-backed currency is that
it will put our exchange rates at the mercy of whoever has the gold.
let's say south africa digs up an enormous quantity of gold. now in the
1950's, they had to come and sell it here, because the US was something
like 75% of the world's GNP. we could be monopsonistic and charge
whatever price we want, say $35 to pick a random number (:^).

since the number doesn't matter, let's use that one. now as you
have pointed out, the currency is only a medium of exchange. holders
of the currency only care about what others who are willing to accept
the currency decide it is worth. so back to south africa. let's say
the south africans want to exchange their gold for widgets. in the US
a widget costs $5, so one ounce of gold is worth 7 widgets.

now let's say some other country (i used denmark in the last example
for now particular reason) says "i don't accept US dollars, but i'll
give you 14 widgets for an ounce of gold". the south africans sell
to them, which effectively drops the real price of widgets in the 
US to $2.50, or raises the exchange rate to $70 per ounce, i'm not
sure which.

it seems to me that this is not a healthy situation under which to
run an economy. as the US's share of world GNP continues to shrink,
we would become more and more subject to the markets of other nations.

i look forward to your reply -- interesting subject.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand(What yo gonna do?)
Organization: FXD/Telerate, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:34:01 GMT

merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

>%	   It would be helpful if Japan bought more Ameican goods.  But
>%   frankly it really doesn't matter all that much.  Their going to have to
>%   buy them eventually (see above).  Why get tough?  I'm happy that the
>%   Japanesse taxpayer is subsidizing my standard of living, why aren't you.

>The main point here is they claim there isn't much they want to
>buy from us. Infact in things like SuperComputers(especially
>massively parallel) we offer them better products at cheaper
>prices and the refuse to buy.

U.S. companies have sold more supercomputers to Japan than
Japanese companies have sold to the U.S.

(Source: _The Economist_, February 17, 1990, p. 21.)

>Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Glen Raphael
raphael@fx.com
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Non-consensual force and abortion
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:12:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.121446.403@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>i find that Libertarians are generally opposed to abortion, but don't
>want to outlaw it. 

This isn't correct.  According to "The _Liberty Poll" (subtitled "What
Libertarians Think"), The following two questions were asked of libertarians
in two groups:  350 LP members at the 1987 National Convention, and 200
subscribers of _Liberty_.  The results were:

                         LP Convention                _Liberty_ Subscribers
   Abortion is wrong:    35% agree (65% disagree)     37% agree (63% disagree)
   Abortion should be
     made illegal:        7% agree (93% disagree)     13% agree (87% disagree)

Although a sizable majority of libertarians in both groups who believe abortion
is wrong also believe it should not be made illegal, libertarians in both
samples disagree that abortion is wrong by almost a 2-1 margin.

                                      James Parker
                                      jap@cb1focus.att.com
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The public good (was: do children have rights etc.)
Date: 15 Dec 1992 23:17:21 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <s0499528.21.0@let.rug.nl>, s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis) writes:

> >I'm sure that individuals can do anything the government can do, and much
> >more efficiently.  
> 
> Like putting up traffic lights? Ah, wait, your answer is already there...
>
> Nah. There's no money in traffic lights, even if the government would keeps 
> its hands of them and leave the cost of them in tax-payer's pockets. 

Heh.

In my town, there were auto accidents the central intersection almost 
weekly, and it was adversely affecting the business of the surrounding 
merchants. They lobbied to get a traffic light installed, because it DID
mean money for THEM.  They would have bought the silly thing themselves, 
but the law said that the state (not even the town) had to do the work.

It took the state five years, or roughly 200 accidents, to get their 
thumb out of their butt.

For four of the years, there was no progress at all, until an enterprising
local councilwoman purposely overturned a school bus in the intersection,
hung a poster on it saying, "This must be what the state is waiting for,"
and called a press conference.  The stunt was aided and abetted by several
of the local merchants.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Somalia, Liberatarian State
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 12:00:14 GMT

In article <lihvrcINNngg@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:

}In the liberatarian model, such protections would be provided by a
}privately-funded police or military. The local power-mongers simply
}acquired guns and funded their own operations through extortion.
}
}The point I am making is that the basis of liberatarianism, that is
}the assumptions of liberatarianism, can be analyzed in the Somalian
}situation. Anarchy is an excellent case in which to study the assumptions
}of any political theory, even our own dem/rep thoeries. Do you deny this?

I do.  Somalia is not a case in which there is no claimed coercive monopoly
on coercion.  It is a case in which the claim is under dispute.  This is
the fundanmental distinction.  The warring gangs (including the US force)
isn't aiming for equal protection of life, liberty, property, and the
pursuit of happiness, but for succession to the dictatorship - at least
in the South.

Somalia's anarchy is chaos, not the absence of Statism which some libertarians
support.  A state is defined as a successfully claimed coercive monopoly on
coercion.


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: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: The Larger Picture (was Re: Gold Standard? No!)
Keywords: Gold, zealot, oil
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:33:26 GMT

In article <liqedgINNra@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>The Gold Standard is to the Libertarian party what abortion is to the
>republicans; an albatross with no understandable defense.

A gold standard makes sense as a reasonable tactic under particular 
circumstances but it does not deserve to be a part of the Libertarian Party
platform. The reason is simple. It detracts from the real issues.

The gold standard is offered, primarily, as a means of preventing the
government from taxing through inflation (or otherwise manipulating the
economy through monetary "policies"). But what is the REAL source of that
manipulation? 

Consider, for example, the case of competing currencies. If First Interstate
offers Interstate Dollars for circulations (either in the form of
printed money or electronic debits/credits) the first question anyone
who is offered these in exchange for goods and services will ask is: what
are these worth? Backing Interstate Dollars with Gold would be ONE possible
MEANS of establishing the worth of Interstate Dollars. Faith and credit would
be another. It may well be the case that First Interstate is such a reliable
and well respected bank that people would accept Insterstate dollars in the
belief that they can then turn around and buy other goods and services with
them. If the Interstate Dollar were floated in this manner, we could expect
a market in Dollar trading to come about (perhaps, but not necessarily, 
involving First Insterstate). This market would have an exchange rate of
First Interstate dollars for gold, US Dollars, Yen, pork bellies, etc.

Now, if First Interstate were to start issuing Interstate Dollars, say, to
cover losses in its loan divisions, the value of the Interstate Dollar
would drop correspondingly. The result would, at first, be that people would
devalue the Frirst Interstate dollar and . Ultimately, in a competitive
envirnment if people began to distrust the value of the Interstate Dollar they
would probably start refusing to accept it and, especially, to hold it.
Ultimately, First Interstate would be out of the money issuing business.

Where is the coercion? Where is the fraud? We might find fraud in the
wanton printing of new money by First Interstate but that would depend, of
course, on the sort of promise that First Interstate made in the first place.
Since we originally postulated a floating Interstate dollar, there was no
promise as to a value. The value depended entirely upon people's trust in
the bank.

In conclusion, the LP should drop the gold standard. If some statement is
required in this area, it should be one of favoring competing currencies.
Competition, not regulation, is the solution to this problem.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Views? :
Date: 17 Dec 1992 16:46:57 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <37947@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>What a commodity-based standard does is prevent the arbitrary increase of
>the supply of money (the original meaning of inflation) by government
>officials.

If you mean gold-backed dollars, you are sadly mistaken, as history shows.
When a government says a dollar is backed by 1/35th oz gold, it can claim
a different quantity the next day.

Nor is the money supply limited to the dollars represented by actual gold in
the reserves: any other resource that could be converted to gold (such as
property, expected revenue, etc.) can serve as backing as well.

>The U.S. and Britain while under the gold standard experienced rapid
>increases in productivity and the standard of living. The gold standard
>kept interest rates low (3-5%), and prevented the consumption of capital
>which results from inflation.

Oh, and just coincidentally the industrial revolution and about 500 other
factors occurred simultaneously.

Now, look at all the nations that have recently experienced rapid increases
in productivity and the standard of living.  When is the last time they had
a gold standard?  Somehow, I doubt gold was the factor for their success,
and somehow that makes me doubt such a simplistic argument as yours.

Mike Huben

"I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked
at it the right way, did not become still more complicated."  Poul Anderson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 17:30:58 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Dec16.213849.12239@unlv.edu> bright@unlv.edu (Paul Conte) writes:
>And another thing: we are giving the government money so that they can
>make money.  Printing presses and paper cost money.  Hell, money costs
>money to make!  That is stupid.  Money should be electronic in this
>day and age. 

No way, no way, no way. The problem with electronic money is that it's
very, very easy to trace. Do *you* want the government to have an exact
record of your every transaction?

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Question: Foreign Policy Issues
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:33:55 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Dec16.195702.6333@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:

|
|In article <1992Dec8.151436.9552@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
|           starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes:
|
|>Hope we win you over.  Damn few female libertarians.  Pity.
|
|Why?

Makes the dances a little awkward for one thing. ;*)

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:53:50 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <1992Dec17.014948.12537@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.205810.5848@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.195702.6333@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>>>In article <724178044snz@keris.demon.co.uk> chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) writes:
>>>>
>>>>In article <1992Dec8.151436.9552@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
>>>>           starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes:
>>>>
>
>[stuff deleted for bandwidth]
>
>>	I think this is topic worth discussing.  Why are so many
>>libertarians opposed to feminism?  
>
>Here are some guesses--many (though not all) feminists are Marxists and
>detest the free market. Many libertarians seem to be somewhat conservative
>-flavored (at least some major libertarian magazines are) and most
>conservatives really detest feminism. (I think that this is partly a
>result of real flaws in feminism, and partly that many conservatives
>are used to thinking of women's concerns as trivial and don't want to
>change.)
>
>I don't consider myself a feminist, but I've been willing to look into
>feminism enough to find a good bit that I like. If you're a libertarian
>and just take a fast look at feminism, you just see the Marxism and
>get disgusted.
>
>(Comes to that, I don't think that Marxism is total nonsense--I've come
>to believe that class is important--I just don't think that it's central.
>I do think that it's easy to be unconscious of the conditioning (class
>and other) that you've received, and that it's worth taking some trouble
>to find out what you've been conned into believing and undo it.)
>
>Nancy Lebovitz
>nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu

	Well, I've looked into some aspects of feminism; and do on the
whole consider myself a feminist.  I must agree that a good bit of
feminism is Marxist, but that seems rather tangential.  For example I
recently read a book by Dorethy Dinnerstein, "the mermaid and the
minataur".  While she advocates a strong govt. role in corrected the
problems of female reared children; I don't know if the free market
solution that is actually occuring (ie. woman working, and children being
raised by auxilaray agencies) shoe would object too.  
	The other thing is that libertarians tend to consider Marxism
almost alien philosophy.  They target moderates, and have trouble arguing
with someone who won't accept even their basic premises (the value of the
individual for example).  Feminism though is treated quite
antagonistically.  So, I'm not sure if that's it.  
	As for the woman's concerns being trivial, I hope thats not the
reason, especially since the platform does tend to take an antogonistic
position on lots of woman's issues.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael)
Subject: Re: libertarian societies
Keywords: libertarian, societies, somalia
Organization: FXD/Telerate, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:39:39 GMT

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

>In article <Bz1v9y.8or@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>>lbs@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (lester.b.shupe) writes:
>>> Without taxes, how will we PAY for law enforcement?
>>
>>Even today, where government monopolies haven't put them out of
>>business, many private fire departments are voluntarily funded.

>That's right, governments just spend money to create fire departments for
>the sheer joy of putting voluntarily funded organizations out of "business".

>Much more likely either the service was inadequate, the funders got tired
>of being played for chumps by the non-contributors and sold out to the town,
>or the increasing expense and sophistication of firefighting technology and
>technique convinced the funders to sell out to the town.

1) there are currently more private than public police in the US.
(this includes a whole bunch of building security guards as well as
more traditional police forces...)

2) there are several states in the US with more private than public fire
 departments. Some private US fire departments are volunteer and raise
 funds through bake sales instead of property taxes, while others are 
 private companies that charge variable fees for services rendered.
 Private fire departments have been responsible for many fire-fighting
 innovations. Where there are private fire companies, one can either
 contract for their services on a yearly basis or as needed; these provide
 better service at a lower cost than public fire departments and the cost
 of a yearly fire-prevention contract is less than the money you save on
 your home insurance bills by getting one.

Source: _The Enterprise of Law_ by Bruce Benson.

>Mike Huben

Glen Raphael
raphael@fx.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: A question from a Republican:
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:45:50 GMT

das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:

>A truly balanced market would have no drugs in them.  See?

I don't think so.  I think that would still be a demand for some kind
of drugs.

But this is just my opinion.  Let's deregulate everything and see if
drugs emerge in a truly free market.

--
	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822490

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian