HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:02:44 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU


        [sci.econ restored to Newsgroups line]

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <52738@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>> In article <87453@netnews.upenn.edu> vvallopp@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Vinod V Valloppillil) writes:

>>>Additionally, I might add that some strains of libertarianism explicitly
>>>attempt to wring morality out of politics.  They seek an economic basis
>>>for all types of governmental law.  Morality and related topics should solely

>> And some type of marxism-leninism similarly attempted to exclude morality
>> from their programs which were ostensibly based on a "scientific"
>> understanding of history. The "libertarian" attempt to pass off prejudice as
>> science is equally convincing.

>	All you are doing with such lies is damaging your net.credability.
>Post the quotes where Libertarians attempt to pass off prejudice as science.

>	Go ahead, make our day.

Libertarians frequently claim that reducing governmental interference
in markets makes them freer and more efficient, so that they will
expand faster than otherwise.  They claim that public sector spending
is always less effective than private sector spending.  I trust I
need not give references for these claims?  Yet, they are undemonstrated,
and so prejudice rather than science.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: dodson@convex.COM (Dave Dodson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Supply-side economics
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:17:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Sep3.161725.12079
Reply-To: dodson@convex.COM (Dave Dodson)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Originator: dodson@bach.convex.com
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <IedWpSa00YV7M2c8pG@andrew.cmu.edu> ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Sorensen) writes:
>A "majority" of Americans saw their real incomes decline through the
>eighties, which lasted ten years not four as indicated. The growth in
>income went to the top 20% of income-earners and most of that went to
>the top 5%. 

A newspaper article about the recent announcement of per capita income for
1991(?) said this was the first time since 1982 that the increase in per
capita income was less than the rate of inflation.  Combining that statement
with yours would tend to indicate that most people fell further behind in
1980 and 1981 (Carter budget) than they could catch up in 1982-1991 (Reagan
and Bush budgets), wouldn't it?

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

Dave Dodson		                             dodson@convex.COM
Convex Computer Corporation      Richardson, Texas      (214) 497-4234
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Adjusting for inflation
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:49:32 GMT

where would i get a table of conversion factors to convert dollar
figures for any given year into dollars for some selected year
(such as 1990 or 1992)?
-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7347 talk.politics.misc:43593
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:30:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1992Sep3.113009.3887
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <BtyC8K.JBt@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
> 
>         [sci.econ restored to Newsgroups line]
> 
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>In article <52738@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>> In article <87453@netnews.upenn.edu> vvallopp@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Vinod V Valloppillil) writes:
> 
>>>>Additionally, I might add that some strains of libertarianism explicitly
>>>>attempt to wring morality out of politics.  They seek an economic basis
>>>>for all types of governmental law.  Morality and related topics should solely
> 
>>> And some type of marxism-leninism similarly attempted to exclude morality
>>> from their programs which were ostensibly based on a "scientific"
>>> understanding of history. The "libertarian" attempt to pass off prejudice as
>>> science is equally convincing.
> 
>>	All you are doing with such lies is damaging your net.credability.
>>Post the quotes where Libertarians attempt to pass off prejudice as science.
> 
>>	Go ahead, make our day.
> 
> Libertarians frequently claim that reducing governmental interference
> in markets makes them freer and more efficient, so that they will
> expand faster than otherwise.  They claim that public sector spending
> is always less effective than private sector spending.  I trust I
> need not give references for these claims?  Yet, they are undemonstrated,
> and so prejudice rather than science.

	That's not the kind of prejudice that Victor is implying.  Rather the
racist kind.

	He's saying that Libertarians want to use psuedo-science to back up
racist policies.

	But since the Libertarians do not promote racist policies, it's a
strawman.

	(And when referring to policies that may or may not be proven, one
usually does not refer to them as "prejudiced".)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:25:39 GMT

Victor Yodaiken writes:
>And there is no claim that the mean-spiritedness and 
>intellectual poverty of "libertarianism" implies in any way that it is
>a "false" theory, merely that it is a repugnant one.

How intriguing an epistemological position!  Yodaiken is claiming
that "libertarianism" suffers from 'intellectual poverty'.

How can I best address this claim?  Well, the usual approach to addressing
such a claim would be to work through a point-by-point explanation
of the theory, showing how each step is true.  But notice that
Victor claims that his claim about intellectual poverty is does
not imply "in any way" that libertarianism is a false theory, only
that it is 'repugnant'.

Once one takes claims of intellectual richness and disconnects them
from truth and falsehood... then where does one stand?

Victor's statement can be translated as follows: "I don't care if
everything that the libertarians say is true.  I don't care if individual
rights give us the best possible mechanism for assuring peace and prosperity.
I don't care if socialism and interventionism simply don't work.  Who
cares which theory is true?  Libertarianism is repugnant."

This, friends, is intellectual poverty.

--Jimbo



Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Capital gains (was Re: why progreesive tax rates)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: usa
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:44:05 CDT


In article <81362@bcsaic.boeing.com>, lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes:
> A lot of people, including many Democrats, agree that indexing capital gains
> for tax purposes makes sense.
> 
> If we take the $1000, 10% gain, 5% infaltion example we get:
> 
> Indexed gain = $50, tax = $15 (30% tax), real gain = ~$35 
> So ROI = 3.5%, which is pretty good in an economy with a 5% inflation rate.
> 
> If Bush understoood the art of compromise, eh could have easily gotten Congress
> to go along with indexing capital gains; but he does not know how to work with
> Congress.  He only knows how to make his semiannual speech calling for lower
> tax rates for capital gains. 

I agree.

Another alternative would be a "standard deduction" from the capital
gains tax, such as the first $5,000 (per deduction) of capital gains
being tax free.  Then Bush could say he got a cap gains tax cut and
the Dems could say they helped families/"the little guys".

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7334 misc.invest:11181
From: burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris)
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:15:46 GMT

In article <2101@usna.NAVY.MIL> potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF)) writes:
>
>    Thomas O. Smith writes:
>
>>Libertarians need to accept the fact that people possess certain
>>basic human rights. An important purpose of government is to 
>>insure that these rights are protected for all citizens regardless
>>of social or economic status. To do this, ......[deleted].....
>>And that is why governments have the moral right to impose
>>taxes. ....[deleted].....
>
>
>     You are correct, humans do have certain inaliable rights. These
>being defined by the founders of our country to be life, and the
>protection of private property. These rights are not based on race
>sex, creed, or economic status. What you propose is that the 
>`rights' of the poor are more viable than the rights of those that
>are self sufficient! That is not to say that the poor should be
>abandoned, but there are private charities to help them. Why should
>the poor have the `right` to some of my paycheck when I payed my
>way through college to earn a higher living? You seem to be
................................................................

> Jeff
>
I must assume you hired your own instructors, provided your own labs and
library, etc. If not, your college education was subsidized with {gasp,arg!}
other people's money.

Jim Burris
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Milton Friedman...
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:34:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1992Sep3.123453.3893
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <52773@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.142622.3826@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
...[much flak deleted]...
>>	Libertarians hold individual rights supreme.  Socialists can not say
>>the same.
> 
> "libertarians" hold property rights supreme, human beings have rights
> not derived from little pieces of paper with official stamps on them.
> 

	I can prove my statement by posting the relevant sections from the LP
platform.  How do you intend on proving yours?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: Dave Dodson <dodson@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Clinton on Economics (transcript of speech)
Originator: dodson@bach.convex.com
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:02:57 GMT
Reply-To: dodson@convex.COM (Dave Dodson)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <seavn2i00WBKQ3vZ1H@andrew.cmu.edu> ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Sorensen) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 26-Aug-92 Re: Clinton on Economics (t..
>by Jim Howe@citi.umich.edu 
>> How about a self-service ice machine?  It is a machine that takes
>> water and produces ice.  Customers put money in the machine and
>> get ice in return.  The 'labor' to produce the product (ice) was
>> performed by the machine, not a person.  Wealth was created because
>> a desireable commodity was produced which did not previously exist.
>
>And where did the machine come from ? 

It was a capital investment.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,news.groups
From: eric@Turing.ORG (Eric Prestemon)
Subject: Idea: sci.econ->talk.politics.econ
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:13:16 GMT

This group (sci.econ) is out of hand.
   Of the 20 or so threads that were up for me to pick, only 3 were
not "talk.politics.econ"-appropriate topics. I would say 2 of those
17 remaining apply to this group, and the rest are just politics.
And honestly, today was a good day. For people who read
talk.politics.misc, to which many of the sci.econ posts are cross-
posted, this isn't a problem. For people who care about economics (not
demopublicans and the never-ending "libertarians are Satan's best 
friends" arguments, this group is a waste. 

     Proposal 1: Rename this group to talk.politics.econ. 
     Proposal 2: Create T.P.E, and keep this group.
I prefer 2, but 1 is better than the current solution. A few quick quotes
from the last 10 or so posts i read...
-Begin
        I know this is not the right newsgroup but, what the heck, I'll
        chip in anyway.
---
[1] Re: Human Rights...
---
Your psychological pronouncements are as well founded as your earlier claim
that property rights were founded on biological principles. One can argue,
---
 I personally fear that he's going to get a chance to implement his
 "New World Order"
--End
Pretty scientific stuff, eh? I have observed also that the posters on
these "talk." threads are not the same people who discuss the issues
related to the "sci."-ness of economics. 
    This is not an official RFD, although I would be willing to post one
or assist anyone interested in carrying through with this idea. 

(follow-ups to news.groups)
-- 
Eric Prestemon (ecp2z@virginia.edu) 
"Jesus saves! Gretzky steals! Gretzky scores!"
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 30 Aug 92 18:40:38 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU


        [talk.politics.theory added to newsgroups line, with a
        view to transferring this thread away from sci.econ if
        it continues]

jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>Thomas Omar Smith writes:
>>Strange as it feels, I have to agree with Victor on this one.  Although
>>Libertarianism possesses a strong argument logically, as a moral system,
>>it is repugnant.

>Again, libertarianism is not a moral system.  Libertarianism is a political
>theory.

A political theory, if implemented, leads to a society with a particular
kind of structure.  That structure affects the options available to
the people of the society, and so can have moral consequences.
Espousing a political theory that has such consequences is to embrace
the moral views inherent in those consequences, and so can be viewed
as a moral system.  It is possible to deny the causal chains
involved (e.g. "Libertarianism will not lead to people starving"),
but it is specious to deny that political theories can have moral
components.

...
>One of the tasks of a legitimate intellectual analysis of the claims
>of the various competing political theories is to discover what ethical
>premises underlie the theory.  Only _then_ can we assess the alleged
>'repugnancy' of the theory.

One should also look for ethical consequences.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:27:34 GMT

victor yodaiken wrote:
>>>The "libertarian" attempt to pass off prejudice as
>>>science is...

And I responded:
>>Ad Hominem!  Minus 5 points for Victor!

To which he replies:
>"Ad hominem"  is not synoymous with "strongly worded". 

I can see that, as I expected, yet another lesson in practical
reasoning is necessary.  Victor is of course right when he points
out that "ad hominem" is not synonymous with "strongly worded".
Unfortunately, he is still guilty of the fallacy, as I shall show.

The "ad hominem" fallacy is committed whenever someone rejects or
dismisses another person's statement by attacking the person rather
than the statement itself.  There are several kinds of ad hominem,
and the name of the one committed by Victor is known as "poisoning
the well."

The "poisoning the well" ad hominem fallacy is consists of trying
to refute a statement by showing that the speaker has a nonrational
motive for adopting it.

Clearly, Victor is trying to refute statements made by libertarians
NOT by attacking the statements themselves, but by showing that we have
a nonrational motive (i.e. prejudice) for making those statements.

Thus, Victor has committed the ad hominem fallacy, and the
5 point penalty stands.

>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

--Jimbo
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:04:08 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <l9kn1cINNfks@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>>The claim here is that:
>>1. Libertarians are cold-hearted.
>>2.  Therefore, libertarianism is a false theory.
>>Well, not only does the conclusion not follow from the premise... the
>>premise is false!
> 
> How about: 
> 1. The implementation of libertarian ideals will lead to policies the
>    majority of americans view as cold-hearted. Game theory research
>    has shown without a doubt people have a sense of "fairness" flatly
>    rejecting traditional economic assumptions concerning rational behavior.

	Please ftp the Lib platform and other party positions and post what
*exactly* Libertarians will do that will be "cold hearted" and why this will be
a problem.

> 2. It takes a majority to elect someone to office or it at least takes
>    a large voting block to influence politics.

	Yeah.   And?

> 3. Thus libertarians will never have a signigficant influence in
>    american politics.

	!
	Do tell.  Since the Libertarians are not one of the "big two", they
will never be of any importance?

> 4. So libs should either give up or reorganize their policies into a vision
>    acceptable to enough people that changes in the political system have
>    a realistic chance of being implemented. In other words give a little
>    and you might get a lot.

	As far as "giving a little", I don't believe in sacrificing principles
in the name of political expediency.  However, neither to I believe that
policies should be cast in stone, never to be changed.  Times change, people
change, and different problems call for different solutions.

	I don't support *every* Libertarian position or goal, just as I never
supported *every* Republican position or goal.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:00:15 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:

>[T]o the following questions a lib would answer yes: Must I pay taxes to
>pay for protection of your property, your life, your defense, to build
>jails, and for a judicial system? 
>
>I would ask why do I have to pay for the things you want but you don't
>have to pay for the things I want?

That's a question someone might ask who wanted the government to do lots
of things, but not provide a police system, a military establishment or
a judicial system.  How many people like that are there?  Does that
point of view even make sense?

>If I were debating against a lib I would ask: If a family of 5 was out
>of work, and they exhausted all avenues of help, would you let the
>family starve? The lib would after many protestations would eventually
>have to say yes. I don't agree with this and  neither to most people.

When used in a debate with a human being, the pronoun "you" does not
normally refer to the government.  So the lib wouldn't have to say yes
any more than other people -- he could say as readily and as sincerely
as anyone "I believe each of us should help those in desperate need by
what we do individually and in cooperation with others."

There would be an issue, of course, as to what procedures to follow and
what organizations to work through.  You might think that when there are
serious problems the government is plainly the right instrument to use
to deal with them.  In some countries many people would assign that role
to the army.  Whether you, they or the lib are right needs discussion,
although your use of the pronoun "you" suggests that you don't see that
need.

>Immutible principles inevitably leads to righteousness. Righteousness 
>leads to nothing but hate and violence. Witness Bosnia, the holocaust,
>muslim attitutes towards women, christian attitudes toward
>non-christians, etc., etc..

I haven't the faintest idea why immutable principles and righteousness
are supposed to be responsible for current events in Bosnia or the
holocaust.  I would have thought that some moral courage -- which has a
lot to do with fixed principles -- could have helped prevent or mitigate
those catastrophes.  I'm not enough of a historian of religion to
comment on what Muslim or Christian attitudes have been from time to
time.

-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
From: ngrjn@milton.u.washington.edu (V Nagarajan)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Milton Friedman...
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:54:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep2.205402.14851
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug31.142622.3826@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
...
>	Victor's political presuasion shines through here.  Even H*r*l can't
>defend the use of the term "blockade".  It's an embargo.
>	And prefectly legitimate.  Nobody should be forced to sell anything to
>anyone.  If I choose not to sell my goods in city A becuase I find their police
>system corrupt, should I be forced to sell my goods in city A anyway?

	I know this is not the right newsgroup but, what the heck, I'll
	chip in anyway. In my opinion, it is neither a blockade nor an
	embargo but something in between. Some months ago, the US `advised'
	India not to sell rice to Cuba that the latter needed very badly.
	India went ahead and sold the rice anyway. This I think is an
	exception. Usually trading with Cuba is a sure way to alienate
	the US and not many small nations, especially the Latin American
	countires, can afford that.
				
							- Nagarajan