HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher)
Subject: Re: FAQ?
Organization: Department of Economics, Univ of Minn
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:11:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.222500.43561@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Subject line says it all...if no FAQ, what is the best single work
>setting forth contemporary Libertarian thought?

Alas, the group is too new to have a FAQ list.

My opinion on the best single work on contemporary libertarian thought is an
unqualified, "that depends on what you want."

For a discussion of the basic libertarian weltunschauung, read Rose Wilder
Lane's _The Discovery of Freedom_, which was written circa 1940 but remains
contemporary.  Warning:  There is a rewrite by H. G. Weaver, called _The
Mainstream of Human Progress_; avoid this, as it's written for an unsophisti-
cated audience.  Lane's writing is elegant and provides insight from one
who had been a part of the Jack Reed circle before coming to our view.

If you want more detail, more of a philosopher's approach to libertarianism,
read Robert Nozick's _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_, unless you haven't taken
economics beyond the intro level (as Nozick would likely be tedious and his
motives might be less clear).  I've heard that Jan Narvesson's _The
Libertarian Idea_ is good for one who likes a somewhat more literary approach
to philosophy, but I haven't read it.

For a somewhat quicker reading but still philosophical work, try John Hospers'
_Libertarianism_.  Hospers is a professor of philosophy at UCSD, where he
publishes an academic journal called _The Monist_, but don't expect a political
discussion there.  Best known for his _Introduction to Philosophical Analysis_
(which he wrote in the late '50's while here at Minnesota), Hospers was the
first Presidential candidate for the LP, earning us a bookworm reputation we've
yet to shake.  _Libertarianism_ is rather untechnical, and, though fairly long,
moves well.

Robert Ringer's _Restoring the American Dream_ is a light, quick introduction
to libertarian thought.  David Bergland's _Libertarianism in One Lesson_ is
an overview of libertarianism as applied to various political issues.  Bergland
was the LP Presidential nominee in 1984, so his view will approximate that of
the Party orthodoxy.

For a view of the goals of the Libertarian Party, call the national LP and ask
for the Libertarian Party Program.  (I don't remember the 800 number, but
someone here will.)

--Jack Stecher
stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:41:29 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ISBELL.92Sep29134041@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

>Of course, even in a private system, if you think dress code is
>important and none of the neighboring schools do, then you're just as
>out of luck unless you have the money and time to get your kid to a
>school 20 miles away.

So, what's your point.  Do you feel that rich people should be denied the
luxury of selecting the best school for their children because poor
people can't afford to choose.

BTW, by using vouchers that have been set to a realistic rate, the problem
of money will reduced if not eliminated.

BTW, I would be willing to get up an hour earlier to drive my daughter to
a truly better school, wouldn't you.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:526 alt.society.anarchy:324
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:04:18 GMT
 <1992Oct3.203813.12798@shearson.com> <parvin1.718214048@husc11> 
 <1992Oct5.043239.4314@genie.slhs.udel.edu> <parvin1.718292343@husc11>

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>In article <parvin1.718214048@husc11> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>}
>}This classical approach is based on the assumption that utility is static.
>}That is, if I make a transaction my utility may change, but if I don't it
>}will remain the same.  Tell that to someone deciding whether to buy heat,
>}food, electricity, etc.

>Bullshit.  You don't know anything about what you're talking about.  Who
>says we're economic classicists?  You're far mor likely to find adherents of
>the Austrian school of economics than (neo)classicists among libertarians.
>Acknowledging that marginal utility changes with time is one of the main
>parts of Austrian or market-process theory.  In case you don't know, the
>school of thought I'm talking about originated the theory of marginal utility.

I didn't claim that libertarians "are classical economists".  I'm simply
stating that this "all transactions are good for all" mentality is a relic
of that age. Also, I didn't say a thing about marginal utilities changing
with time. It's not the change in marginal utilities, but the marginal
utilities themselves that I was refering to.  (You can be screwed the exact
same way a thousand times ;-) )

Why don't you read what I was responding
to before jumping all over a straw horse?  I was attacking a moral
JUSTIFICATION for a free market, not the notion of its workings.  If, as
you claim, libertarians are not neo-classicists, then such a justification
is hypocritical, not simplistic. If that makes you feel better, fine.

>You're certainly not going to win any points or debates without doing your
>homework.

For your information, I'm currently researching a thesis in the history of
of economic thought, and last year took a five person seminar course with
Robert Nozick on theories of rationality.  Now I hate ad hominem arguments
as much as the next guy, so why don't you tone down your personal attacks
so we can get on with the debate at hand.  Show some civility, and get off
your non-existant high horse.

>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu


-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:464 alt.politics.marrou:1388
From: REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:57:33 GMT
 <1992Oct1.203557.4039@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: University of Maine System


   Although I only know of Maine's situation, voting for the LP
candidate rather than not voting is a necessity!  Ballot access
in Maine can be accomplished in one of two ways...  Petition or
by winning at least 5% of the vote in any contest in the previous
election year.
   The LP was saved the agony of a petition drive in Maine this year
because the third party (Independant) candidate for governor won
15% of the ballots cast and then declared himself a Libertarian.  Of
course, this was just a favor to the LP, and he cast his weight with
Perot later on, but we thank him, none the less, for the favor!
   Before you waste your vote by (a) not voting, or (b) trying
to guess whether Bush or Clinton will win the horse races, consider
the effort that could be placed elsewhere next election if your vote
for Marrou (or some other candidate) could save the LP a petition
drive!

   I can guarantee that I WILL vote LP anywhere that I do not see
a greater need in Stopping a particular person (Linda Bean vs. Tom
Andrews... Linda Bean has GOT TO BE STOPPED.  Even though Tom Andrews
is a Democrat, he axed some spending on a useless defense program at the
expense of a boat or two in his own back yard!  Balls, I say!  Maybe
we can swing him to LP!)  Bush and Clinton BOTH NEED to be stopped.
I may vote Perot, despite his attrocious personality problems and
lack of Civil Liberties common sense.
   1) Perot is an Independant - read a third party victory would
      do more to make America think about election reform than
      any 5% LP showing!

   2) Perot will cut spending.  I am not real fond of higher taxes to
      pay the deficit, but some times you gotta get a second job to
      pay your debts!  This is just America's equivalent.

   3) We, the people, can fight infringements on our Civil Liberties
      without getting into a National Pissing Contest over limited
      resources.  Unlike the pork that's spread around in Congress,
      there is no finite amount of Civil Liberty.  Get fiscally-
      responsible people in office and then protect ourselves from
      the other evils!

   That's my opinion, and next time I log on, I'm sure I'll hear yours!

Jeff Andle   DoD #3005  1976 KZ900     REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
                                       jandle@wolf.eece.maine.edu
"THE LESSER OF 2 EVILS IS STILL EVIL!" - NANCY LORD, C-SPAN 9/21/92
Choose between "tax & spend" vs. "lie & spend"?  Get real!
"What, Exactly, it the meaning of a victimless felony?"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:38:13 GMT

wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
>Question to the "anarcho"-capitalists and "libertarians" at large:
>
>Whence the seemingly unshakeable faith in the inability of the private
>sector to coerce?
>
>Seems to me in a buyers' market or sellers' market the sellers or
>buyers respectively get the short end of the deal.  Market leverage is
>Power.  There are all kinds of things I would do differently if not for
>its existence, and I believe I would be freer absent of it.

Whenever two people make an agreement in the free market, they are
both engaging in a voluntary act. You want my $10 more than you want
the digital watch you are selling; I want the digital watch more than
I want my $10. After the transaction is complete, we are both happier
than when we started. Note that there are nothing but voluntary acts
involved here.

Now, lets say that we impose price controlls to make things "fairer",
and force you to sell your digital watches for $5. Since you would not
do this voluntarily, we must supply men with guns to make sure you
comply and who will arrest you if you don't and shoot you if you
resist arrest hard enough. Is this freedom, or was the previous case
where all parties behaved voluntarily freedom?

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: steveg@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Steve Gabrilowitz)
Subject: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Keywords: snowball's chance
Organization: Martin Marietta
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:03:18 GMT

I'm new here, so please don't flame me - I'm not trying to start a debate despite
possible appearance thereof in the subject line ;-)

I've recently realized just how much the Libertarian platform agrees with my
personal political beliefs, and am looking for more information.  From what I know
of Marrou and what he stands for the biggest problem I have with casting my
ballot for him is this:

How can I vote for a candidate who admits he has no chance of winning?  Isn't this
just about the same as throwing my vote away, or just plain not voting at all?




-- 



I think
I think I am
Therefore I am!
I think...



                            Steve Gabrilowitz
                            Martin Marietta, Orlando Fl.
                            steve-gabrilowitz@orl.mmc.com
                            Fidonet 1:363/1701 (407-380-1701)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: secsu@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ralph O. Clark)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  2 Oct 1992 17:46 EST  

In article <1992Sep30.091620.6641@hellgate.utah.edu>, galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes...
>In article <1992Sep29.223953.26882@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>>Because libertarians _define_ coercion to just mean physical coercion.
>>It's certainly true that being in a bad situation economically can lead
>>to you doing things that you don't want to do.
> 
>Cops kicking in your door to search your house is coercion, rent-a-cops
>kicking in your door to search your house is not.  Oh, yeah, I forgot,
>you had a choice when you signed your employer's contract--you could
>sign it and give up rights, or you could starve.  
> 
>>The best I can say to that is that physical coercion is even worse,
>>and that it seems as though most people who worry about economic
>>coercion think that physical coercion is the solution.
> 
>Physical coercion is worse than economic coercion if you have lots of
>money.  If you have no money, then then economic coercion can be much
>worse.  Just like physical coercion is no big deal to muscle-bound guys 
>with bazookas, but a big deal to 98lb. weakling pacifists.
> 
>Since, as most anarcho-capitalists keep saying, everyone should be 
>trying to take care of themselves, why shouldn't poor people try to
>set up a government that gives them leverage against corporations and
>the rich?

The real question here is the difference between *governmental* coercion
and *private* coercion. If a security company bashes in your door,
you can have them arrested for breaking and entering, sue for civil
damages, etc. If the *police* break and enter, you have no recourse.

Ralph
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:586 alt.society.anarchy:364
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: You can't, and shouldn't TRY, to control the economy.
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:32:06 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA



I wrote:

>All attempts to justify economic intervention using mathematical models,
>such as static equilibrium, dynamic equilibrium, or even chaotic
>attractors are logically flawed from the start.
>
>When economists write down mathematical equations, they are not
>describing some underlying physical mechanism in terms of 'utility' or
>'value.'  All they are doing is cleverly encoding past economic events.


In article <1992Oct6.005707.4004@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, adams@liszt.berkeley.edu writes:

> The point is, however, not correct.  It betrays a misunderstanding of
> mathematical modelling and the purpose of these models.

[...]

Mathematics is the science of measurement.  The fundamental flaw with
mathematical economics is that what is being measured (value) is
subjective, ordinal (as opposed to cardinal), and unconserved.  It may
not be the intent of the mathematical economist to 'merely' encode past
economic events, but that is all that can be logically said about the
'success' of an economic model independent of insight into human action.

An economic model may provide genuine economic insight, but that insight
is into human action, not any mechanistic system.  For example, that
economic data can to some degree be successfully described using
mathematics from statistical mechanics (your thermodynamic example)
merely suggests that to some degree humans act in aggregates.

Since the source of economic data is value, and since value is a
subjective function of personal preferences and inhomogenous conditions,
and since the function of the entrepreneur is to seek opportunities to
change conditions by bringing together favorable ordering of the value of
goods, any conclusions based on mathematical models alone are useless.

thant
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Subject: Re: Constitution as "contract" betweeen govt. and individual
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California
	<1992Sep25.193639.1094@CS.ORST.EDU>
Distribution: na
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:03:19

In article <1992Sep25.193639.1094@CS.ORST.EDU> @prism.CS.ORST.EDU writes:
   I am interested in hearing what leads you to regard the Constitution as
   a contract *at all*.  It is not obvious to me that it should be so
   regarded.  A "constitution" is a founding statement of government,
   laying out the fundamental principles of a new political order and
   specifying the basics of how those pronciples will be implemented.
   What is your interest in defining this as a contract?

"We the people" makes it a contract, IMO.  And don't forget who are
the sovereign citizens and who are the public servants.  Also witness
that there has been a 180 degree turning in the "order of power"
making the sovereign citizens, under "de jure" government, into
subjects of the bureaucrats in our present "de facto" government.

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  | This space for rent. |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: "Child Abuse"
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:57:54 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Originator: lando@tango


(Rebecca Rhodes) writes:
>Why would anyone wish to support a governer [Clinton] who's state is one of
>the leading states in corporal punishment?  You know, where they paddle
>public school children's behind with a wooden paddle heavier than a wooden
>baseball bat and wider.  Sometimes with holes in it so it stings?

If a child misbehaves in class and disrupts the educational process, he
deserves to be spanked/paddled whatever.   Children need to learn discipline
at a young age, or they will find difficulty working with others at school,
at work, or in social circles.   I appreciate that my parents _loved_ me
enough to spank me when I was a child and took the effort to discipline me
and teach me how to behave.  Corporal punishment is not the only way to
teach disciple, however, it is effective when applied correctly.

IMO, corporal punishment should be applied only to the gluttious maximus,
since there is ample padding in that region of the body and no internal
organs will be damaged.  There seems to be a nerve that goes directly
from the rear-end to the brain to register in the child's mind that what
he did was not appreciated and that his behavor should be reevaluted and
reformed.  (I.e. if Junior stole a candy bar from the store and he did
not pay for it, a good spanking might help him to not repeat his sin.)

I agree with Roger Collins, calling corporal punishment "child abuse" is
ridiculous.  Child abuse is a cruel act of violence against a child for an
act that does not merit punishment, OR when excessive punishment is applied, it
brings physical harm against the child that would require some sort
of medical attention (this would include mental abuse too).   A good spanking
may hurt, but it should never require the child to receive first aid
or a visit to a doctor, etc.  I might add that those people who neglect
to disciple their children are the true culprits of child abuse, because
their children will know how to behave.

I think a major problem with this country is that the Government is
sticking its big-fat-nose into the way people raise their children
with regards to spanking.   If the Government does not allow us the
self-evident right to govern ourselves and our families, we will indeed
be a nation of brats.

Oh, by the way, I couldn't look myself in the mirror if I had voted
for Slick Willie.  I trust him about as far as I can throw my car.
-- 
"He is the best friend of American liberty who is most sincere and active
 in promoting pure and undefiled religion." John Witherspoon, signer of the
 Declaration of Independence.
From: adams@liszt.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz)
Subject: statistics
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:08:52 GMT


Could someone please post statistics about federal spending an deficits.  Here
is specifically what I'd like to get information on:

1) Size of federal budget, national debt, budget deficit (in absolute numbers 
and as a percentage of GNP).

2) Percentage of budget spent on military, social welfare and entitlements, interest
payments, and others.

3) Major federal tax increases over the last four years.

4) Any other cool statistics you can think of.

Thanks in advance,
Adam
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:33:50 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <11206@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu> bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

>In article <ISBELL.92Sep25111138@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>|> 
>|> I've been unclear about what happens when too many people want to go
>|> to the same school.  So, what happens?  Do those who live near get
>|> priority?  Will we have tests for four year olds?  What?

The methods of selection will be left to the individual schools.

>What happens when you drive up to your favorite restaurant and the waiting line
>is out the door and into the parking lot??  You go find another place to eat.
>Are you saying because a school does a good enough job that the demand for their
>services is real high that the government should step in and decide who gets this
>better service??  

Any school that is experiencing such long waiting lists will try to expand
as rapidly as possible.  For example, if they are making a profit of $100
per year per student, by building another class room, they would have room
for 30 more students, and would therefore make $3000 more per year.
(All numbers are figments of my imagination.)
Secondly there would be a rush of imitators also opening schools.  They also
want a piece of that $100 per student.

Yes there would be a short period of confusion while we settle into the
new system.  But the students who don't make it into the new schools
will be forced to return to their old schools.  Which is exactly the
situation they would be in if we stayed with the current system.  IE. they
would be no worse off.  And in a couple of years there would be room for
them in some new school.  BTW, it is also possible that the current
schools will wake up and begin to adapt the new policies, so that even
those students who have to stay in the current schools will receive some
benefit.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian