HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:17:12 GMT

In <1993Jan9.073052.16069@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:

>In article <1ihiguINN57b@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>I partly agree with you.  But let's talk about claims, beliefs and
>>understanding for a moment.  "Demopublicans" only have (roughly) 200 years
>>of real world example of functioning government here in the USA with which
>>to evaluate claims.

>What??  Until the early 1900s, this was the most libertarian country on earth.
>The government of the last 80 to 90 years bears little resemblence to the
>the government (or lack thereof) preceding it.  

>From about 1750 to the early 1900s, the U.S. had an economic boom unprecedented
>in human history.  There was no charity beyond private charity, little 

And there were all those nice sweat shops, gouging landlords, child labor,
hospitals that were more like places to go and die. All the wonders of
enlightened self-interest. Of course, there was also a civil war where
the enlightened north objected to slavery in the south, while practising
economic slavery in the north. Ah yes, the good old days.

>government interference in markets or private life, no minimum wage or
>drug prohibition, no income taxes, no federal reserve, no FDIC, and in general
>there was little tolarance for the socialist demopublican ideas that you love
>so much.  Just a lot of wealth to be had and the freedom to get it.

>You do NOT have 200 years of history to back you up.  You have 80 or 90 years
>of decline to show the value of your ideas.  The libertarian thinkers have the
>preceding years of growth to back up their ideas.

Yep, now all we have to do is reopen all those marvellous institutions
described above, solve the education crisis by putting the kids back in
the coal mines and sweat shops, and we are on the road to prosperity.

>  Thanks awfully,

You're welcome :-)
>             Patrick
REB

Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3195 comp.org.eff.talk:8462 soc.culture.usa:9601 alt.activism:20197
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 10 Jan 93 03:53:44 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <1993Jan9.231931.24551@midway.uchicago.edu> sals@caine.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
>
>> 
>> 	I'm sorry but I couldn't let this one slip by.  Take a look at who
>> is forming this contract, the constitution:
>> 	
>> 		WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in Order to FORM a
>> perfect UNION, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide  
>for
>> the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the  
>Blessings
>> of Liberty to OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this
>> Constitution FOR the United States of America.
>> 
>> 	At the bottom it signed by the representatives of the people and
>> later ratified by the states.  If this were a corporate contract  
>wouldn't
>> you consider it binding?
>> 
>> --JMB
>
>No. For starts the representatives were NOT given the power to make the  
>constitution by anybody other than themselves. 

	True, but later the elected state legislatures ratified it.  That
sounds like the document has power, even if the convention was somewhat
illegitimate.

>Additionally as I wrote in  
>my post the constitution is not a binding contract because everyone who is  
>bound by the constitution consented to it. 

	This makes no sense, would it be binding if ereryone did not
consent to it, or if only someone consented to it?  What are you arguing?	

>Many people opposed the  
>constitution but had it forced upon them. Incidently the convention did a  
>sneaky trick in sending the constitution not to the elected state  
>legislatures to be ratified, but to special consititutional conventions.  

	Who, every state (except Rhode Island) agreed off the cuff, and
since then every state has agreed.  Further, every citisen who is
naturalized has explicitly agreed to its contents.

>And the orginal consitution was not signed, signatures were added by  
>publishers of copies later. 

	Irrelevent ratified by the states; though an interesting fact.

>Also the US is not a corporation. Even if the  
>people alive had consented to it they could not have bound their posterity  
>(us) to it. Read my original post carefully and you'll see I addressed  
>these arguments.  

	Finally, the founding fathers agreed that the dead had no right to
bind the living. They explicitly addressed this with the Amendments
clause, and the right for the states to pull out (later recinded during
the civil war).  It still however binds individuals.

--JMB
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: sheryl@seas.gwu.edu (Sheryl Coppenger)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:01:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.163516.4229@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>
>	I would say that most libertarians hold "abuse of economic power"
>to be definitionally impossible.

What about the concept of monopoly?  Say Joe Richdude doesn't like your
building a better mousetrap for less money and buys all your suppliers
then refuses to continue to manufacture (or continue to supply) an essential
piece.  You can't manufacture it yourself because you don't have the
startup money for a second manufacturing concern (although you might have
had eventually if he hadn't cut you off at the knees).

Also, how do Libertarians feel about "company towns" where people were
paid in scrip instead of money and could only buy things with it in the
company store?

Libertarianism is not new to me, I met my first Libertarian about 10
years ago.  I've heard the arguments about fraud and coercion, but there
seems to be an assumption that everyone will have a reasonable amount of
negotiating power so that anything that looks like it is unfair is only
the result of stupidity on the victim's part if there's no physical
coercion.  I just don't buy it.  

I also have a problem with the idea that people who don't have enough 
money for food and housing should be expected to save 20 to 30 percent 
of their income to start a business or send the kids to Harvard or
whatever.  The question of whether or not one believes the state (or
Harvard for that matter) should pay for their education instead is 
independent of the logic of the expectation or the fairness of labeling a 
person lazy or stupid because they do not fulfill the expectation.

>[stuff about egress deleted]
>
>	Basically a libertarian would hold that the above is your fault,
>due to lack of planning and forsight.
>
>__JMB
>

Of course a classic joke is that if a meteor fell on your house and
destroyed it, the Libertarian would say it was your own fault for
choosing a bad location. :-)

-- 

Sheryl Coppenger    SEAS Computing Facility Staff	sheryl@seas.gwu.edu
		    The George Washington University	(202) 994-6853          
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Subject: A question for Mike Huben
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:01:27 GMT

The following is a question which I'd like Mike Huben to answer. I'd
be interested to hear his answer, and it may precipitate a lively
discussion.

Mike: How do you define the verb "to own" and the concept of "ownership"?

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/    Finger for PGP key       | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:09:33 GMT

In article <1iviujINNpqc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an127@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Korac MacArthur) writes:
>	How about this abuse of economic power:  another huge recession
>hits, jobs get axed and there is mass unemployment and poverty.  The
>unemployed slobs were to stupid to draw up a clause in their contracts
>about jobless benefits, so they are on the streets and starving. 

Hey, define what ``abuse'' means?  What does it mean to ``abuse''
power?  To do things which are mean?  C'mon.  It means to take away
other people's rights.  Are you saying that everybody has a right to a
job (and if so, then you have quite clearly spelled out a fundamental
tenet of socialism)?

>Joe Richguy cares not a whit and since there is no more govt. coercion,
>doesn't do anything for his dying ex-employees.

You would force him to care a whit?

>Not enough people care
>to help, so there is 3rd world conditions in many major cities.  Then
>what?   People deserve the right to starve?    I'm sorry no, not if
>humanity has any meaning other than species.   I like libertarianism's
>ideas, but it also needs some social conscience.

Social conscience at the point of the gun?  How do you plan to
*enforce* your idea of social conscience?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Netcom
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:24:31 GMT

In article <726503448.886@zooid.guild.org> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>
>It must be very comfortable to believe in a single simple working model for
>society.  Of course, it does overlook the problem that there isn't a stable
>"solution", and that there are a number of different ways of doing things that
>almost work.
>I wonder if the "social programmers" get nervous around anything that deals
>with chaos theory?

So the complaint is "Libertarianism is too simple".

Consider Republicanism:  "Let's give big breaks to the supply side, and
then we'll all be happy".  Sounds too simple.

Consider Democratism:  "Let's get the government into the insurance
business, and then we'll all be happy".  Sounds too simple.

Hans Lachman
lachman@netcom.com
"I'm not a Libertarian, but I play one on TV."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Sapphire on Libertarianism
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Date: 9 Jan 93 04:16:26 GMT
 <1iil2dINNb5p@cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu> <1993Jan8.131954.25224@samba.oit.unc.edu>

>In article <1iil2dINNb5p@cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu> peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>>It is exactly the same story as someone hanging a free newspaper on
>>your doorknob.  That paper is yours to read.  But you cannot reuse the
>>articles it contains contrary to the intellectual property rights of
>>the authors.  If the publisher doesn't want you to read the articles,
>>she must either encrypt the articles, or not hang the paper on your
>>door.
>>
>>Mike Peercy
>>peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu

I tend to agree with this position for broadcasts... (and getting rid of
stupid anti-encryption laws can help), but how does it apply to private
"eavesdropping" on one's own property?

For example, suppose I have a top-quality directed microphone, and I aim it
from my property to a quiet conversation occuring well within your property.

First question: May I do this?

Second question: If so, what may I do with the overheard remarks?

The problem I have with applying the "posted newspaper" analogy is that
"intellectual property" rights do not protect privacy.  That is, I may freely
casually discuss the general content with anyone I choose, just as I may say,
"Guess what I read in today's paper?"

Taken to an extreme, may one apply any surveillance one wishes on another, so
long as the information is contained in EM or sound waves on one's own
property?  With the advance of surveillance technology, will one have to
surround one's home with electronic countermeasures to be guaranteed some
semblance of privacy?

-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:04:36 GMT

In article <C0nLuM.17D@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill  
Hallam-Baker) writes:
> In article <1993Jan9.005140.15584@news.columbia.edu>,  
gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
> (Gary L Dare) writes:
> 
> |>garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)  
writes:
> |>>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
> 
> |>>You mean borrow-and-spend Republicans. Bill Clinton also wants to 
> |>>socailize health care like all the rest of the industrialized world.
> |>
> |>"Socialists" of the pro-business parties in Canada, France and Germany
> |>gave those countries the second-most capitalist medical systems in the
> |>world.  You wouldn't know it in America if you've never visited there  
or
> |>read about it in their newspapers/magazines nor talked to their  
people.
> |>
> |>... instead, you'd be lobbying for pseudo-socialized medicine via HMO
> |>(even Clinton is guilty here).
> 
> The important feature of a socialist medical system is that it be free.
> 
> In Germany the system is that I am required by law to have medical  
insurance. In
> effect it is simply a tax because the insurance rate is a proportion of  
my
> salary (9%) of which my employer pays half.
> 
>
The socialist medicine is not free you just don't see the costs as  
directly. The costs are taken out of yourtaxes and out of your employers  
profits (which you eventually pay for). The money is then redistrubuted  
according to a political calculus not an economic one with all of its > 
>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3363 talk.politics.misc:67124
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:03:27 GMT

In article <1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>My parents were impoverished immigrants.  They, my sisters, and I could
>never have afforded our educations which propelled us into the middle class
>without substantial government loans and subsidies.  I defy you to point to
>a nation that creates and perpetuates a large middle class without such
>subsidies.
>

So let me see if I understand this. Premise 1: Your parents were poor.
Premise 2: You needed an education to suceed. Conclusion: Joe Richguy
down the street should be compelled, at gunpoint, to pay for that
education. Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I'm missing the logical leap
there.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/    Finger for PGP key       | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 08:35:31 GMT

In article <1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

>My parents were impoverished immigrants.  They, my sisters, and I could
>never have afforded our educations which propelled us into the middle class
>without substantial government loans and subsidies.  I defy you to point to
>a nation that creates and perpetuates a large middle class without such
>subsidies.

Wasn't America in the 50's such a society?  Even my father, who went to 
collage in the early 60's, could earn enough to send himself to collage
at Michigan State University during the summer.

What happened?  Why isn't this possible today?  Perhaps a conversation I
had recently with an Executive Vice President of Purdue will be illustrative.

Purdue recently proposed a whopping 25% increase in tuition.  This was of
course was going to be ballanced by a concommitant increase in assistance to
students.  Nice and great, right?

Wrong.  The Executive VP of Purdue told me that it was all part of a plan
to make Purdue and Indiana University the "flagship" universities of
Indiana.  Right now, average students can get accepted into both places, but
under the covert plan the idea was to give the extra aid to students who were
way above average, thus using the increased tuition to deny average students
the possibility of ever going to Purdue.

Another point:   The tuition of Purdue increases at a regular, dependable 
rate of 8% a year.  WHY?  The inflation rate has been barely 1/4th of that.
Is the quality of education increasing at a rate of 8% at Purdue?  Hardly.

Dudes, these collages operate on Supply and Demand just like anybody else.
If the state subsidises education, that means that people can pay more for
education, and hence the collage charges more for it, and because there are
more people wanting to go to collage than there are places for them, the
collage can get away with it.

It sounds really good to give poor people assistance to go to collage, and
I have yet to meet a Libertarian who doesn't think that private scholarships
shouldn't be encouraged, but the high-sounding, moralistic ideal of "giving
everybody a chance to go to collage" is being perverted into just the opposite.
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 15:40:28 GMT

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
: 
: That sounds very nice, but in fact I don't think it's true.
: 
: As a business person I'd sooner walk away from your one dollar if you
: hassle me than a congressperson would walk away from your one vote.
: And once you start accreting, well, you'd better accrete both votes
: and dollars to keep the comparison rational.
: 
My experience has been the opposite.  When I was double billed by your
company, I sent a note pointing this out and had a note of apology
within a day.  I think the "world" has very good service and prices.

On the other hand, when the local government falsely accused me of owing
property taxes on land I didn't even own, I got a nasty letter that said
I had to appear at the police station (or they would come and get me.)
I did as it said and wasted half my day running around.  (The initial
letter didn't even tell me which property it was so that I could know
that it wasn't mine.)  They had complete incompetence for even
sending me the letter since the person who was on the deed had the same
name but lived in a different city!  After all was done, I didn't even
get an apology.  I got everyone else pointing fingers and no one taking
responsibility for the error.

All in all, your company fixed a problem promptly, and graciously, 
because you cared more about my dollar than the county tax accessor 
cared about my vote.
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:25:34 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <C0r0J5.6Hp@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
|> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
|> 
|> [whether government or business is more answerable to the public]
|> 
|> >I want private corporations and the individuals within them to be
|> >answerable when they use fraud or steal from other people.  Here is an
|> >experiment that anyone can do to see who is more answerable.  The next
|> >time you are in a line at the grocery store or post office compare the
|> >experience.  How are you treated if you complain?  Do this at any
|> >governmental agency and any private company.  Who is more responsive?
|> 
|> Now, follow this experiment with a request to see the profit margins
|> and salaries in the private corporation...
|> 

Now ask to see a breakdown of the "Black" budget for the DOD or the CIA...

bill

-- 

   Bill Gunshannon     | "There are no evil thoughts, Mr. Reardon" Francisco
   bill@cs.uofs.edu    |  said softly, "except one; the refusal to think."
                       |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 11 Jan 1993 15:40:13 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan9.023822.16008@midway.uchicago.edu> sals@random.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
>Much of this discussion ignores the question: How does being in a place  
>entitle a government or any group of people to arbitrary (or nonarbitrary)  
>dominon over oneself? You, Mike, posit the fiction of a social contract.  
>But I never agreed to a social contract nor did most if not all the people  
>in the US. Even if other people did then so what? How does the presence of  
>a social contract among other people give them any power over me?  
[The rest of a classic Spooner-type diatribe omitted.]

Let's list some other things that you (and most other people as well) did
not agree to.  The ecology.  The banking system.  The system of property.
Geography.  The language you use.  The list goes on and on.

Actually, it is possible to justify governments in a purely libertarian
manner simply by acknowledging another type of property.  We all know that it
is possible (and quite common) to own property in a less than absolute sense.
Properties have easements, they may have separate water, timber, oil, mineral,
air, access, and other rights owned by others.

We can posit another explicit property right: territorial governance rights.
There are numerous historical examples of these being bought and sold.
For example, the Louisiana Purchase.  The property in Louisiana was not sold:
rights to govern it were: that's why property owners were not disposessed by
the purchase.

We can view the Constitution as a document cedeing some territorial governance
rights of the states to the Federal government.

Thus, I see territorial governance as merely a type of property, much like
an easement.  Disputing the distribution of this property is exactly as valid
as disputing the distribution of any other property.

I will grant that such property might be as "wrong" as slavery.  But I will
leave it to you to convince me why in terms that don't equally invalidate
other property.

(This notion of territorial governance rights is, to the best of my knowledge,
my own.  If you know of any other writings in a similar vein, I'd like to
hear of them.)

Mike Huben

"Education is what survives when what has been learnt has been forgotten."
						B. F. Skinner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian