HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Libertarian party animal?
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:58:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.123343.6831@wpi.WPI.EDU> padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton) writes:
>	Why do we WANT a symbol for the LP?  It seems to me that enough
>   people already tend to unthinkingly associate themselves with an easily
>   identifiable party symbol, ignoring the principles(or lack of) of that
>   party.

We WANT a symbol because it makes the party more visible.  It gives an
easily identifiable representation to be used in editorial cartoons.  It
lets the party be firmly embedded in the psyches of the American people.

And I think the symbol should be a cat.  I can't think of a more libertarian
animal than a cat.  Of course, it will probably offend all the dog lovers
out there, but a dog would be a terrible symbol.  Dogs are panting sycophants,
more than happy to do whatever stupid thing their pack leader wants them to
do.

Cats, on the other hand, do what THEY want to do.  I think our symbol should
be a cat.

>	Should we be encouraging new people(?) to deal with the LP in the
>   same way, or am I just being too stuffy?

WAY too stuffy.  If you want to get a majority vote, you have to appeal to
the lumpen.  Easily recognized symbols are the way to do that.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

The emperor has no clothes.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: keithl@klic.rain.com (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Children and Adults
Organization: KLIC
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 06:02:40 GMT

What if we develop the idea of "Adult" and "Child" a little bit.  A "Child"
is entitled to food, shelter, education, and "protection" from themselves.
 An "Adult" demands handouts from nobody, and makes their own decisions.
"Adults" vote.  "Children" don't.  A "Child" becomes an "Adult" at any age
they claim the right and can support themselves and their progeny - age
14 or 40.  I've met a lot of 14 year olds with more maturity than some
alleged adults.  For those who hate inherited wealth, we can include jobless
playboy offspring among the "Children", just to be fair.

The biggest problem I see are boundary cases - of course, the government
would feel the need to make the determination itself.  What about the person
who earns most of their own money but gets "gifts" from daddy?  What about
the self-sufficient backwoods type who doesn't live on handouts OR money?
Perhaps someone else can think up a cheap, bureaucracy-free method of
separating the sheep from the lambs.

Keith
-- 
Keith Lofstrom         keithl@klic.rain.com       Voice (503)-520-1993
KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas in Silicon"
Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Power ICs
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: International wage control (was Re: Libertarian history)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:44:27 GMT

In article <4670033@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM>, chan@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Chan Benson) writes:
> What an impoverished life you must lead, believing that only the
> "objective" is real.
> 
> Can you define "freedom" in completely objective terms? To my mind, 
> completely objective definitions occur only in artificially restricted
> domains; such is the nature of language.
> 
> Just because you are not interested in subjective definitions as a basis
> for "designing" a society, doesn't mean that others aren't. 

  Um, so what? Others are also interested in using your life for
their goals without your concent or approval, shall we give them
a free hand? Why don't we start with you. 
  This my friend is exactly where the Dark Ages came from, and the
Renaissance ended. The fact that anybody cannot comprehend this is 
a sad indictment.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Subject: Re: A Waiting Period for Free Speech
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:57:57 GMT

In article <m+hmbpp.tcmay@netcom.com>, tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) 
gave a proposal for

>A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR WAITING PERIODS ON FREE SPEECH

I applaud Mr. May's progressive views on free speech.  Of course, he left 
out at least one important aspect of such a program:  legal speech.  Yes 
folks, that's right.  There are items (beyond national security items) 
that are banned by the U. S. Government.

U. S. Code, Section 1461-1a states:  "... no program material prepared by 
the United States Information Agency shall be distributed within the 
United States.".  That means that if you hear something on Voice of 
America (which is a part of the USIA), it is illegal for you to distribute 
that information (rebroadcast, publish, etc.) within the USA.  (Also, note 
that VOA does NOT intentionally broadcast to the USA.)

Mr. May, you might want to consider making this a federal program for our 
own good.

DISCLAIMER:  THESE ARE MY VIEWS, NOT MITRE'S.

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
From: chan@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Chan Benson)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:31:02 GMT
Subject: Re: International wage control (was Re: Libertarian history)
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

> > Just because you are not interested in subjective definitions as a basis
> > for "designing" a society, doesn't mean that others aren't. 
> 
>   Um, so what? Others are also interested in using your life for
> their goals without your concent or approval, shall we give them
> a free hand? Why don't we start with you. 
>   This my friend is exactly where the Dark Ages came from, and the
> Renaissance ended. The fact that anybody cannot comprehend this is 
> a sad indictment.

As an exercise, tell me how you would like society to work. Explain
why your proposal does not involve subjective valuations.

			-- Chan
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: test for wcc
Summary: nothing in particular
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:04:47 GMT

Testing this post
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20:29:11 GMT

tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>In article 711829904@cancun, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>Hmmm, and I noticed after I posted it that a liberal did the same thing.
>>

>It's human nature to try for cheap debating points.

Amazing, huh?

> Anyway I'm not a liberal so I won't take offense.

Take offense?  It wasn't an attack on liberals, it was an attack on
your worthless generalization.



>>>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.

>You don't have life? Well if you are not using it can I have it?
>[blah blah]

Gad, the ultimate moron.  Why don't you learn how to read?  When you
learn what "can" means it opens up all sorts of linguistic
possibilities.  Either that or you realize you don't have a leg to
stand on and the only way to save face is by trying to shift the claims.
-- 
Up your accumulator.
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertrians and the environment, info
Date: 28 Jul 1992 17:04:58 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article l71c9eINNcb6@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM, johnb@corp.sun.com (John Benninghoff) writes:
>A minimal state is not intended to provide goals but rather just define
>and defend rights.  You must be confusing it with a socialist state which
>DOES provide plans/goals for everyone.  Without rights most people
>don't believe any significant contracts are possible.  Everyone benefits
>from rights.  Unless you can demonstrate a system without rights and why
>it is superiour you haven't provided a viable option.
>

You do have goals. You goal is to defend rights. It's only when you think
you have a monopoly on absolute truth that you talk the way do you.

> it's OK for you to enter the 'Great Gray'?  We in fact all live in the
>'Great Gray', it's called a mixed economy.

Of course it's OK. Whenever you deal with people who differ radically in
opionions you must enter the Great Gray, or be willing not to play in the
game, or be willing to hijack the game. Libs philosophically can't hijack
so for the most part they don't play, except at the fringe.  This is a
shame and a waste.

>I'm not particularly proud or happy with it's achievments. 

And if you are "proud" with it's achievments is not an issue. Only a child or
a tyrant would be arrogant enough to assume their philosophy should be everyone's
philosophy.

>And since the planned economies have been such
>pathetic failures what's wrong with moving towards a free market?  Not
>afraid it might work are you?

Oh you don't want a really free market, you want a government that enforces
how you think government should work. No use of force, fraud, support
for police, courts, and defense and all that. You delude yourself into thinking
this is the one truth all must obey.
From: johnb@corp.sun.com (John Benninghoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertrians and the environment, info
Date: 25 Jul 1992 01:41:02 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: barfly.corp.sun.com

In article <l6r8gfINN3fg@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>So this is justification for taxation and in general government claiming a
>monopoly on force? Quite weak. Perhaps we do not share the same
>goals, yet you are forcing me to follow your goals. If you provide
>a defense and I benefit as a side effect then tough luck. Your fear of
>giving a free ride to others is not justification for enslaving me through taxes. 

A minimal state is not intended to provide goals but rather just define
and defend rights.  You must be confusing it with a socialist state which
DOES provide plans/goals for everyone.  Without rights most people
don't believe any significant contracts are possible.  Everyone benefits
from rights.  Unless you can demonstrate a system without rights and why
it is superiour you haven't provided a viable option.

>It seems smart people could better use their time trying to create system
>people on both sides could accept, if not grudgingly. I can easily
>see a system where general taxes, yes even the hated income tax, fund
>functions like health care, schools, defense, etc., yet does not run
>them, and acts as QC group. Your support for government paid schooling
>fits into this model nicely.

But it's OK for you to enter the 'Great Gray'?  We in fact all live in the
'Great Gray', it's called a mixed economy.  I'm not particularly proud or
happy with it's achievments.  And since the planned economies have been such
pathetic failures what's wrong with moving towards a free market?  Not
afraid it might work are you?




/jb

From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:08:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: The Truth? (and more about T.R.)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

In alt.individualism, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

> 
> 
> Freedom is good. Money is good. Self interest is good. I would go so
> far as to say that greed is good, but unfortunately most
> non-objectivists wouldn't understand what I meant by that.

Or they may understand exactly what you mean and disagree.

Your post was a good one, especially the part about how free
markets are a natural expression of human nature.  I agree
totally.  However, lately I have been wondering if the totally
free market is not unstable.  What I wonder is whether
the forces that seem to move capitalist democracies towards
socialism might not be a natural expression of human nature
(an outgrowth of fear, jealousy, and the need for groups to
normalize behavior) as well.   This leads me to wonder whether
libertarian yearnings for a totally free market may be
just as foolish as Marxist yearings.  In other words, they
desire what they view as a utopia, and this utopia is
unattainable because of very real facts about human nature
and how it behaves in groups.

So far I am just wondering, but I honestly think their 
is a grain of truth to what I suggest.  Debate it amongst
yourselves if you will...

doug
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 28 Jul 1992 23:22:28 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 28JUL199216225621@rosie.uh.edu, st1g9@rosie.uh.edu (Lee Preimesberger) writes:
>	Frank, if you truely believe that the world can be magicked to
>perfection by a wave of a politico's pen, you are sadly mistaken.
>
>	Ideas must be changed.  Laws are bullshit.
>

Almost certainly the system is much more complex than you imply. Generally
neither an idea or a law is first. Laws feedback into social mores, social mores 
feedback into laws, the proportion of each varies from issue to issue, over time,
and is highly contextual. A lot of bootstrapping goes on. If a meme fails to 
propagate then any laws based  on the meme will be repealed, start not being 
enforced, or only enforced on rare occasions. Likewise a law can precede the 
acceptance of a meme and cause a meme to propagate. 
From: chan@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Chan Benson)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 15:44:21 GMT
Subject: Re: International wage control (was Re: Libertarian history)
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

> Can you define 'fair' in completely objective terms?  If so, please do.
> I for one would be absolutely fascinated to see what you think the
> word means.  Any subjective definitions are, of course, completely
> useless as a basis for designing a society, so I hope you won't waste
> our time (and the net's bandwidth) with any such.

What an impoverished life you must lead, believing that only the
"objective" is real.

Can you define "freedom" in completely objective terms? To my mind, 
completely objective definitions occur only in artificially restricted
domains; such is the nature of language.

Just because you are not interested in subjective definitions as a basis
for "designing" a society, doesn't mean that others aren't. 

			-- Chan
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 23:46:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.091039.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.231714.16273@leland.Stanford.EDU>, dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
># 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.

>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?

Did I *ever* say I thought this was appropriate?

All I said is that libertarianism assumes that poor people won't
try to do it. Or at least that they won't try to do it in numbers 
sufficient to bring down the system.

One of the reasons we have the state in the business of 
redistributing wealth is that when the conditions get too bad for 
the poor and they don't think they have anything to lose, they
tend to revolt. Capitalism leads to inequal distribution of wealth;
libertarianism, as an extreme form of capitalism is likely to lead
to an extremely unequal distribution of wealth. If this fomented a 
lot more events like the LA riots, then all of the liberties you
are arguing for would disappear just in an attempt to hold society
together.

Now maybe that wouldn't happen. But it sure seems like a possibility
to be considered. And libertarians *do* assume that the poor will
do what they're told and leave the wealthy alone.



-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
      There's something in my library to offend everybody.
        --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 1992 16:08:23 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 22795@ncar.ucar.edu, gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>  BTW, you seem to think that since Libertarianism doesn't condone using the
>  state to force a certain position on issue <X>, that all positions on <X> 
>  are equally tolerated, and yes, even condoned. Not even close. I do not 
>  tolerate racists, sexists, any bigot of any stripe, but I do not approve of
>  using the state to smote these kinds of jerks. I realize that a state that
>  is given such power will quite likely use it against me or my views.
>

If you are afraid of state power why then would you allow the state to
have monopoly control over force at all?
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 24 Jul 1992 16:55:23 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 535@genie.slhs.udel.edu, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>Yes, St. Augustine.  In case anyone doesn't know, this position in the
>philosophy man is essentially St. Augustine's.  More recently, Libertarian
>activist David Bergland called it the PANG premise, an acronym for People
>Are No Good.
>

Logical falacy and overgeneralization: you have no basis for universally
quantifying people as good or bad. Value judgements such as goodness or badness 
can only be decided in reference to a value system. Unless a shared value system 
is established any statement or conclusion as to the goodness are badness of 
people is a null event.

>That people are rational is axiomatic; in order to attempt to deny this
>assertion, human rationality is required.
>

So by definition a human can not make an irrational argument? I agree, but
probably for different reasons than you. From within an individuals
own value system any behaviour is by defintion rational.  This means that
there are as many definitions of rationality as there are people and groups.
Thus any appeal to create laws through absolute rational metrics is doomed.
The rationality of a libertarian is not the same rationality as an economist,
a jesuit priest, buddist monk, or bezerker. Logic systems are simply that,
artificially constructed systems with a very limited domain. Extrapolating 
conclusions from a restricted formal system to a general system is invalid 
reasoning.
From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Turning Japanese
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:21:15 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <l7dqp8INNnoh@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM 
(Kristian Skrinak) writes:

>What are your thoughts on conformity in Japan? Does anyone have a
>personal experience in Japan that highlights the differences on
>individualism between our cultures? 

Reason magazine, Aug '92 issue, has an excellent article on Japanese 
culture, considering aspects of individualism as they relate to business.  
(Reason is a libertarian magazine [note small "l" in libertarian].  I have 
no stake in the magazine or the article.)  You may find it to be a good 
starting point in your investigation.

DISCLAIMER:  THESE ARE MY VIEWS, NOT MITRE'S.

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Subject: on banning private discrimination
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 09:08:52 GMT


Let me see...Mr. Dauber says that because _some_ gay people have
trouble in _some_ bars, that invalidates the free market, and good
old Mommy Government is needed?
 
*Ahem*.  Let us examine this a little more closely.  I, myself, 
hang around in some of the scuzziest, nastiest, most hoodlumy bars
in my entire neighborhood.  The people in them sometimes are rough
looking enough to make Conan the Barbarian whimper for his teddy
bear.  I have no doubt that were I to kiss or hug another male, I
would have to deal with some fairly serious problems.
 
 _However_, I would have to deal with some fairly serious problems
if I did a lot of things that offended the patrons---ranging from
hustling pool and getting caught at it, to abusing the topless 
dancers, to starting fights.  And, in all the bar-lounging I've ever
done, the famous question "Are YOU a Pooftah?" has never been asked
of anybody, at the door or anywhere else.

 In general, in any bar, if you behave like you belong, and don't do
things that bother the other patrons, you won't get bothered.  Granted
that this does not leave gay guys much latitude to express affection to
each other in the typical straight bistro.  Well, what of it?  What we're
talking about here, it seems to me, is what is called custom, and you
can pass laws against customs till the cows come home, and not get anywhere
fast.

 Yes, it's not fair that gays can't express affection openly.  However, 
there are plenty of places where _straights_ can't express affection openly
such as Saudi Arabia, many Latin countries, and no doubt, there are others.
Passing laws saying that this custom should change will change nothing at
all.
BTW, I am straight myself...and as middle-class looking as all-
get-out.  Nonetheless, I have sat as the only "citizen" in a group
of outlaw bikers, and had a wonderful time talking to them.  A lot
depends on how you come across, and how they perceive you.  ACT UP
type tactics may feel good, but they won't really do much good in
the long run, IMNSHO.

 Please post responses both here and in e-mail...I don't get to log
on often.
-- 
Technomad.  Portmanteau word from a novel I'm roughing out, about
a nomadic culture in a "cyberpunk" dark future.  I thought it up
before Cyberpunk 2020 ever came out.  On ISCA and Quartz, they
know me as a Flame-god.  cc697@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.individualism