HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:35:17 GMT
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Jul24.174409.28165@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
> 
> >	* Charitize welfare
> 
> What does that mean?

Abolish the government welfare system and empower non-governmental charity
organizations to help the needy.  They do a better job of it.  The LP
program includes proposals for dollar-for-dollar tax credits for people
and orgainzations helping those in need.  This will give incentive for
people to contribute to charity -- a moral value that has been generally lost
in the wake of the government welfare system.

> Sounds like snake oil, to me.  Those pesky codes aren't designed to drive up
> the cost of housing, they're there to ensure safety.

Of course not.  Building codes are supposed to ensure safety, not drive up
the cost of housing, but the simple fact is that they fail on both counts. 

>  Should people be allowed
> to live in unsafe housing just because they can't afford safety features?

Should people be forced to live on the street (or in some government-provided
barracks) just because they can't afford the government approved and inspected
housing?

> The homeless problem isn't lack of affordable housing, it's an excess of
> jobless, poor, addicted, and mentally or physically ill people.

The jobless poor cannot afford the housing currently available under the
government inspection and protection that you defend.  I suppose you would
propose that your taxes be increased so that the government can build more
barracks in which to house these people while they spend their lives waiting
for the government pusher to deliver the monthly "fix" of a welfare check.

We've been doing this for almost three decades.  Are the problems of
affordable housing and joblessness better or worse?  When what you're
doing isn't working, do you do more of it, or do you try something different?

According to Walter Williams, an African-American economist at George Mason
University, government social programs in the past 27 years have consumed
enough money to have purchased the entire assets of the Fortune 500 companies
and most of the farmland in the U.S.  Should we do more of this, or should we
look for new and innovative ways to address the problems?

John Wilkes  <wilkes@apple.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 05:51:40 GMT

In article <168327B27.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
}In article <nr99a54@zola.esd.sgi.com>
}Of course regulations cost.  Who ever said they do not?  The
}Libertarian alternative of removing these regulations costs too.  You
}assume builders would only cut corners on housing for poor people?  I
}don't.  I assume they will cut corners on my house given the chance.
}Without standards, they would have no reason not to do so.  I don't
}want my kids sleeping in a firetrap because the builder could save a
}few dollars on the electrical system, while charging me for more
}expensive parts.

By this argument, there would never be any good housing without statist
requirements.  Can you cite evidence from of any such area where housing
standards that could have been afforded weren't due to the lack of this?

Supply and demand, supply and demand!  Quality of housing is a preferred
value, just like so many other things.  In competitive markets, the supply
of quality housing will rise to meet that which is affordably demanded.  What
we libertarians argue is that statist intervention, at best, only redistributes
value, it doesn't raise it.  Force and Fraud are not productive; they don't
produce better houses any more than they produce wealthier consumers (excluding
theft, which isn't production, but the parasitic taking of the production of
another).  Once you factor in transaction costs, statist intervention actually
lowers the degree to which goods like housing meet quality standards.

Besides, what you describe is a case of fraud, and is already actionable,
since it's a violation of your rights.  Defense of individual rights is all
that's necessary in this case.  No coercively imposed standards are.

We don't argue against quality housing, we argue that free markets provide
it better than statism.

}In some cases, yes.  I want regulations that say a manufacturer cannot
}dump poisons into my drinking water supply.  If that makes the
}customers of that plant pay more because the manufacturer has to cover
}the costs of proper disposal "against their will", then tah's just too
}bad.

This is another irrelevant example.  This would be a case of tresspassing,
and also legally actionable.  You've yet to give an example of an action
that you want to be prohibited that we'd argue should be legal!


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Position on intellectual property?
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:14:01 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA



 mlee@esd.dl.nec.com writes:
> My opinion, as a student of the libertarian philosophy for 22 years, is
> that the govt.  should not protect inventions with patent laws and
> copyright laws.  My opinion is that the protection of intellectual
> property should come from contract law or common law.

   Could this poster please come back and explain what he means by this?  

   If I invent a thing and someone is intent on copying my idea 
   how do I use contract law to prevent it?  

   Example:  I invent a new genetically engineered vegetable with some
   wonderful properties at great R&D expense to myself.   What is to
   prevent a consumer who buys these at the supermarket from taking out
   the seeds and planting them and going into business competing with  
   me?   Currently patent law covers this, in the US.   Under mlee@esd.dl.nec.com's
   does every consumer have to sign a legal contract for everything they
   buy in the supermarket?

   OR:  Currently as an engineer I cannot use certain designs or algorithms
   in commercial products *even if I invented them independently* if they
   are already patented by someone else.   How could contract law possibly
   address things like this?



   BTW, what do people here think about the current attempts by various
   companies to patent whatever parts of the human genome that they've
   discovered?


---peter

  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: werme@alliant.com (Ric Werme)
Subject: Re: Libertarian ticket supported on Rush Limbaugh show
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:49:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.115615.26158@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE> wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt) writes:
>What evidence is there that the two parties have tried to "suppress"
>the Libertarians specifically?  I've never heard so much of a peep
>of recognition towards the Libs from them.  

Two examples:

1) [This is hearsay, but I heared it on USENET, so it must be true :-) ]
   Someone called a radio station to cancel a Nancy Lord interview.  The
   station didn't bother to check and folks were rather embarrassed when
   Lord arrived on time.

2) I alluded to this a couple days ago, so please forgive the
   repetion.  A special election for State Rep for Milford NH included
   one republican who ran on an absolute no abortion platform, and one
   libertarian.  (NH is not a Democrat stronghold.)  A week before
   the election the Democrats fielded a write in candidate, which is a
   feasible thing to do since there is only a single polling place.  I
   believe the D "machine" drove people to the polls, I know the R's
   did.  Memory is fuzzy, but the vote totals were something like R:
   40%, L: 35%, D: 25%.  Had there not been the D writein, I'm sure we
   would have won, increasing the libertarian contingent in the state
   house by 50%, which would have been a major embarassment to the Rs
   for running such a defeatable candidate and a bigger embarassment
   to the Ds for not running a candidate from the outset.

   BTW, this is one reason for the big push in NH to run a lot of
   Libertarian candidates.  I never realized that the old parties
   actually had such a machine that they could concentrate on a single
   campaign.  By challenging them on several fronts it will be harder
   for them to focus on individual campaigns, or even to figure out
   which ones to focus on.

Sure, for the most part the old parties deal with us best by ignoring
us.  If they paid us some attention, the press might actually cover
it!  When we start getting enough votes to get the press interested,
then we may threaten to throw an election between an R & D.  Then they
can't ignore us.  When we threaten to actually win an election, they
*do not* ignore us.

> Wayne Tvedt                                 wayne@mathematik.uni-bremen.de

uni-bremen?  I wouldn't expect too many Demopublicans suppressing Libertarians
there.
-- 
| A pride of lions               | Eric J Werme                 |
| A gaggle of geese		 | 77 Tater St			|
| An odd lot of programmers      | Mont Vernon NH  03057	|
| A Constitution of Libertarians | Phone: 603-673-3993		|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:17:08 GMT

In article <28JUL199212065298@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
}Just for the record, this second paragraph is *not* Bartley's position.
}Bartley rejects justification completely, replacing it with criticism;
}this is parallel to Popper's replacement of induction with falsification
}in science (Bartley was a student of Popper).

Quite true.  I didn't mean to characterize Bartley's position differently
than you have described it.  thanks for keeping me on my toes!


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.individualism,alt.privacy
From: sreardon@bradley.bradley.edu (Steven Reardon)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord in '92!
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 21:28:47 GMT

In <1992Jul23.152708.14105@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:

>THis selling off of gov't industry was the key plank of Margaret
>Thatcher's cure for the UK.  We all can see how well it has worked
>there.......NOT.    People just made alot of profit on the
>privatizing of industry but can't say it has helped the UK
>become a stronger, industrial country.  Hey, Jaguar is now
>owned by some American company, so much for Buying British cars

Not to get picky or anything but British Ford was around a loooong time before
they bought Jaguar.  Ever heard of the Prefect?  It was a standard over there
for years.  Also, the U.K. government never owned Jaguar.

>for Princess Di.  Seriously, privatization theories are usually
>just that -- theories, and dont usually do what all their
>proponents like Thatcher would claim.  

Nonsense.  Private businesses run better than public ones.  Who makes more 
profit per year: Burlington Northern or Amtrak?  Who gets higher test scores:
private school kids or public school kids?  And that's even considering that
the private companies/schools are laboring against unfair regulations and
competition from the government.

Even if privitization didn't make a dime for the government, it would still
be better for business and better for the economy.


-- 
*  "I just got my coffee the right color.  It's the only thing I have   *
*   going for me today.  Don't f**k with it."                           * 
*              -James Belushi                           Steven Reardon  * 
*                                         sreardon@bradley.bradley.edu  *
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 11:27:51 GMT

In article <1682EC8E0.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.174409.28165@ornl.gov>
>de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Jul24.110504.28326@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>This is exactly what the Libertarians propose.  In the interests of
>personal freedom, they believe each poor person should be allowed to
>decide for himself whether he would rather have an unsafe house than
>no house at all.  Safety codes and inspections are all that keep the
>benevolent builders from unleashing a veritable flood of truly
>affordable housing.  This flood would sweep all the homeless off the
>streets, create zillions of new jobs, cure aids, oust Saddam Hussein,
>... OOPS!  Got carried away by a rush of Libertarian rhetoric there.
>If a few thousand people die in buildings that burn down because of bad
>wiring, well, these folks have to pay the consequences for choosing to
>live in unsafe housing, now don't they?

A) "Builders" include the people who profit from the often ridiculous
   regulations.
B) Are you saying the homeless are better off on the street than on the
   lucky days they find a way into a boarded-up, condemed building?  I
   find it hard to believe that any open, operating building would be 
   less safe than a closed one, which is safer than no building at all.
   Utopia is not an option.  Incremental improvement should not be
   rejected while waiting for the perfect solution solution to appear.
C) There is a civil law concept of "merchantability" (or something like
   that).  If you buy a toothbrush in a closed box, even after being
   warned that there is no warranty of any kind, and you bring it home 
   and find it has no brissles, civil law imposes a warranty.  When you
   buy a toothBRUSH, civil law says you have a right to expect a BRUSH.
   I rather expect when you buy a house or rent an apartment, civil law
   says you have the right to expect that it will be built using generally
   excepted practices that insure it won't fall over or burn down.  

Let me say I share your concern about such things as bad wiring.  I'm not
always 100% comfortable with the complete 'hands off' goals of the LP.
But can't you share my outrage at building codes written to insure work
for builders?

I don't know if we 'need' the complete LP agenda, but there's no 'danger'
of that for a while.  We DESPERATELY *NEED* more Libertarian thought,
however.  So for now, I support the LP.  They don't peddle solutions so
much as they want to give people back the power to help themselves.  The
great unwashed masses tend to be amazingly clever and resilent, and do
a better job of working things out than a few out-of-touch power-brokers
thinking up ideas to 'help' them.  I have a lot of respect for a political
party that recognizes that.

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Nomination for LP Mascot
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:01:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.145518.1331@linus.mitre.org> jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) writes:
>> Here's another vote for the "Don't Tread On Me" Copperhead for LP Mascot.  If I
>> remember correctly, one of the reasons it was chosen by revolutionaries from
>> the Southern colonies was due to its virtue of striking humans only when
>> attacked--hence the "Don't Tread on Me" warning to Britain.  If this is true,
>
>I like it, I LIKE it!  Ok,  I hereby withdraw my nomination for the
>tortoise and "third" the nomination for the Copperhead snake.

Nope, I don't think a ssssssssnake is a good symbol.  Just think of the
connotations: snake in the grass, tempted Eve, something to kill on sight.

I still think a cat would be best.  Specifically, the North American Puma
(or Mountain Lion).

Although I would go along with the Eagle -- the Eagle has the advantage of
already being associated with the US, it's smaller the the Donkey or the
Elephant, it soars above either of those animals, and it just plain LOOKS
GOOD.

   \_\_\_                               \
    \_   \_          \_                 /   -Pete Zakel
     \_   \_  \_\_    \_     \_\_       \
\_\_  \_\_\_ \_   \_ \_\_\_ \_   \_     /       phz@cadence.com
       \_     \_\_\_    \_   \_\_\_     \    or
        \_     \_        \_   \_        /       ..!uunet!cadence!phz
         \_      \_\_      \_   \_\_    \

Ronald Reagan is the Fred Astaire of foot-in-mouth disease.

				-Jeff Davis
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
From: werme@alliant.com (Ric Werme)
Subject: Re: unfair treatment of LP (getting better in New Hampshire)
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:20:09 GMT

In article <archer.113@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.194804.29636@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson) writes:
>
>
>>In article <archer.109@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes...
>>> 
>>>Personally, I find it ironic that the state whose motto is "Live Free or 
>>>Die" is in the forefront of undermining Second Amendment civil liberties.
>>> 
>Well, last I head, and I don't get up that way often, that they had 
>implimented a post-Purdy "assault weapon" ban, had a waiting period for 
>handguns, and assorted other "Brady Bunch" legislation. If my heresay is 
>incorrect, please let me know.

The only gun I own is a BB gun, but if any of these had been
promulgated, the hue and cry would have been deafening!

My wife is one of the State Rep candidates, and the NRA sent her a
questionaire.  They customize it for each state, include state regulations,
and include a summary box.  As I recall, the only restriction was that you
need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.  Permits are available from your
town's Chief of police or selectmen.  Out of staters apply to state police.
In most towns this is just a formality.

Implement the Brady bill?  That would require state spending!  Yech!

If you are looking for anti-libertarian ideals here, look at the department
of education (despite ranking 50th for STATE aid to education, they make
life very annoying for home schooling), the Department of Youth and Child
Services (they have taken kids out of homes based on anonymous reoprts and
without due process), and some use (and abuse) of property forfeiture laws.

A few more libertarians in the state house should exert considerable
pressure on all this.

>-=-=-
>T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
>University of Tennessee
>"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
>-=-=-


-- 
| A pride of lions               | Eric J Werme                 |
| A gaggle of geese		 | 77 Tater St			|
| An odd lot of programmers      | Mont Vernon NH  03057	|
| A Constitution of Libertarians | Phone: 603-673-3993		|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism
From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Subject: Re: Primitive notions
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:36:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.112241.27220@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick 
Szabo) writes:

>>In article <1992Jul27.233115.10691@Veritas.COM>, oleg@Veritas.COM writes:
>>
>>> There are some (tribal non-technological) cultures that do not understand
>>> property rights as the Western Europeans do, a la the oft-sited "How can 
>>> anyone own the land?" confusion of the nomadic tribes when encountering >>> the property claims.  

>Now now, let's not be Eurocentric.  There are plenty of Westerners who 
>share this primitive notion; we call them socialists.  All too often,
>here in the U.S., we even call them Democrat or Republican.

Sometimes they will call themselves "intellectual".

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

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:114 alt.politics.perot:1010 talk.politics.misc:35216
From: oleg@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Questions about libertarianism
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:35:10 GMT
Reply-To: oleg@veritas.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Organization: Palo Alto Killifish Loft
X-Disclaimer: I speak for myself only unless explicitly indicated otherwise

wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes) writes:
>The principle was that when people made improvements
>to land, they should benefit by acquiring ownership rights.

What sort of "improvement" can you do to the wilderness that is supposed to
stay untouched to preserve natural wildlife habitats?

>These techniques need to be expanded to encourage people to to protect
>and defend endangered fish and wildlife which would otherwise be abandoned
>to the "commons."

What objective criteria can be used to arbitrate a dispute bewteen an 
environmentalist group that claims the ownership because they are preserving
the wilderness vs. a mining company that wants to uproot the forest to get at
the minerals, or a lumber company, or a housing developer?
-- 
"... i heard the droning / in the shrine
	     of the sea-monkey / palace of the brine ..." -- Pixies.
Oleg Kiselev                                             oleg@veritas.com
VERITAS Software                           ...!{apple|uunet}!veritas!oleg
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.theory
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Subject: Re: Position on intellectual property?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 22:02:23 GMT


In article <1992Jul30.210023.26404@esd.dl.nec.com>, mlee@esd.dl.nec.com writes:


> My opinion, as a student of the libertarian philosophy for 22 years, is
> that the govt.  should not protect inventions with patent laws and
> copyright laws.  My opinion is that the protection of intellectual
> property should come from contract law or common law.

Copyright law could be considered the 'default' conditions of a certain
class of contracts.  In other words, there is not necessarily a conflict
between contract law and copyright law provided people have the right
to voluntarily override the conditions of standard contract law.

Patent law is messier and I don't want to pretend I'm qualified
to say anything about it.

thant
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Message to Libertarians (Was: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:39:21 GMT

In article <Bs7qst.J4H@acsu.buffalo.edu> blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger) writes:
}We aren't here to win a flame-fest.  As Voltaire says in your quote," True
}greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
}oneself and others."  And as the Libertarian presidential candidate
}says, (paraphrased) libertarianism is easily accepted by most people when it is
}explained in a proper fashion.

Precisely.  Flame-war victories have zero utility.

}I contend that those two men are saying the same thing.  Be polite, be
}informative, never be drawn or tripped into bickering.  Present your
}philosophy as best it can be and let people judge it on its merit, not
}on your ability to jeer at your fellow debater.

I quite agree.  All I was saying was that juding from the cooperation, unless
it improves, I'm defecting.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:321 alt.individualism:4790 talk.politics.drugs:5519