HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Environmental laws - in principle.
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:32:12 GMT

In article <JEFFT.92Nov11094119@chirality.rsa.com> jefft@chirality.rsa.com (Jeff Thompson) writes:
}
}I was trying to explain that honest people should be free to do
}whatever they want.  If it turns out that using a CFC emitting
}refrigerator in the privacy of my own home really does help wreck the
}planetary atmosphere that everyone depends on, then libertarianism has
}no problem with making this illegal, right?  Don't flame about CFCs.
}I know about the ozone layer and global warming hoaxes, etc.  I'm
}talking in principle:
}
}Libertarianism has no problem with enforcing laws like laws against
}murder.  If using some envirnomentally damaging product "X" in my own
}home really does have a victim, which is your air, then there's no
}problem with making it illegal. No?
}

You are correct.


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

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:45:09 EST
From: Robert Sterling <RSTERLI@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Help Dis Totenberg!

National Proletarian Radio's Nina Totenberg will be coming to speak at my
U. tomorrow night, Thursday 19 November.

I want to ask her a really mean question, and have thought up a few...but none
that really satisfy me.  Any ideas?

Last year I embarrassed X-Sen. William"CheeseMan" Proxmire, so I have some
experience with this.  Hey! It's not my fault that leftists have no sense of
humor!   :)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Fraud in defense of rights
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:21:46 GMT

In article <FvH=F0+@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
}Here's a difficult moral question for folks out there. I'm
}curious to know if the LP has an "official" answer to it.
}
}We have a right and a duty to disobey unjust laws, correct?
}Does that mean that we have a right or even a duty to commit
}fraud in order to disobey these laws?

Not when the IRS will imprison one for this, you don't have any such duty.

For example: Taxes
}are unjust, is it therefore right to lie on your tax
}return so as to avoid the immoral burden?

Right?  Depends.  Will you go to jail or not?  You will.  Then it wouldn't
be right for you.  If you can get away with it?  If I say yes, will the IRS
use this against me in the future?

Having a legal
}minimum drinking age is unjust, is it therefore right for
}a minor to create, use, or even sell false identification
}for the purpose of appearing over 21?

Only if they won't suffer criminal penalties for it.

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

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: ah@dunaad.co.uk (Alan Hunter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: FAQ/Annotated Reading List
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:54:23 GMT
Organization: Johnson Hunter Limited

I'd appreciate it if someone could let me have a copy of of a faq or
reading list for this group if one exists. Otherwise any suggestions will
be most welcome.

Thanks
Alan


-- 
Alan Hunter
Johnson Hunter Ltd
Isle of Islay, Scotland
A.Hunter@dunaad.co.uk          fax: +44-496-2336         voice: +44-496-2286
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: The social contract
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:08:07 GMT

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>If you support the constitution and its process of ammendment, then you
>already agree that a certain majority has the right to dictate the level
>of personal freedoms.

Yes, a super majority (2/3 of representatives, ratification by the
states), unfortunately, can dictate the level of personal freedoms.

>Consider dueling.  Should there be freedom to duel?  How would libertarians
>decide whether it was coercion, violation of right to life, or simply
>a private affair between "consenting" adults?

As long as non-consenting persons were not in danger, and non-consenting
persons were not forced to pay for their injuries or funerals, why not?
Now look who is talking mom-and-apple-pie.  Do you think all
life-threatening activities should be illegal?  skydiving?  mountain
climbing?  Or if it's just the fighting that bothers you; how about
boxing?

>Now, it's all very well to talk about vague mom-and-apple-pie good things
>like more individual freedoms.  Everyone nods their heads at those, until a
>specific example comes up and they realize the effects.  Feel free to get
>specific.  Tell me a freedom you want to add.

OK.  On personal issues, I see relegalization of gambling and marajuana
as being pretty safe first steps.  On economic issues, I think
individuals should be able to buy their own "art" rather than have the
NEA make that decision for them.  I mention these because I think they
already have somewhat mainstream appeal.

Beyond these, one of the biggest challenges would be to phase-in the
freedoms in good order.  For example, the S&L crisis was the result of
*partial* deregulation.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Weld is not a libertarian
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 07:10:48 GMT

In article <97746@netnews.upenn.edu> vvallopp@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Vinod
V Valloppillil) writes:
>I had thought about this as well.  Sometimes I wonder if in '96 we could
>more libertarian (small 'l') good by supporting (somehow or another) som
>like William Weld or another more 'mainstream' candidate who happens to 
>embody
>a lot of libertarian views.  This, however, is probably a rather extreme
>example of a type of action that I think NLP should engage in more often

I don't have any problems supporting non LP libertarians. Weld
is no libertarian though. He acts like a typical Republican on 
economic issues and a typical Democrat on social issues. Do you
like typical Demopublican stands on either set of issues? 
Weld supports the WoD, environmental protection via regulation,
special rights for minorities and industrial policy. Most of
the pundits are saying Weld and Pete Wilson appeal to the same
voters. Do you think Pete Wilson is a libertarian? I bet 
libertarians groping for someone powerful to call a libertarian
would be praising Wilson instead of Weld if Wilson had faced
down the legislature last year and Weld was doing last year
what he is now.

--
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: Fraud in defense of rights
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:52:44 GMT

In article <FvH=F0+@engin.umich.edu>, positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:

>Here's a difficult moral question for folks out there. I'm
>curious to know if the LP has an "official" answer to it.

Since I make a point of having nothing to do with the LP, you'll have to settle
for an "unofficial" answer.

>We have a right and a duty to disobey unjust laws, correct?
>Does that mean that we have a right or even a duty to commit
>fraud in order to disobey these laws? For example: Taxes
>are unjust, is it therefore right to lie on your tax
>return so as to avoid the immoral burden?

It's the moral equivalent of shoplifting.  Tax burden is shifted from those who
cheat to those who don't.  And most of us low-self-esteem cases who work for
someone else have overwithholding...we don't even have the opportunity to _try_
to cheat the IRS.  Of course no libertarian (party member) said life was
supposed to be fair.

> Having a legal
>minimum drinking age is unjust, is it therefore right for
>a minor to create, use, or even sell false identification
>for the purpose of appearing over 21?

Isn't there something illibertarian about issuing ID cards in the first place? 
Why not let the omnipotent/omnibenevolent/whatever Free Market take care of
this function...them that wants one can buy one.  Them that don't are free to
buy and sell without the mar (as far as the Law is concerned, anyway), but
since there would probably be less risk in dealing with people whose
whereabouts or at least whoabouts can be accounted for, non-card-carrying folks
would probably have a tough time getting along in the world.


 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Walter Lee                                          w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu

Fortune's graffito of the week (or maybe even month):

		Don't Write On Walls!

		   (and underneath)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Marrou's puzzling vote totals: Why & consequences
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:36:53 GMT

In article <1djie9INNoem@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill
 Henley) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>And if the Libertarians are going to continue as a party,
>it may be time to re-evaluate the party platform and do some
>compromising with reality. 

Okay, which freedoms and which oppressed groups do you think
we should sell out first?

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:59:58 EST
From: Robert Sterling <RSTERLI@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Help Dis Totenberg!
 <MDL.92Nov19095918@ak.cypress.com>

Yes, Nina Totenberg is the person who broke the Anita Hill story.
She publicly announced, on her government financed radio program,
unsupported allegations against Clarence Thomas.

Her "network", NPR, is supported by funds taken from the taxes of private
citizens and corporations.

This Nina Totenberg is representative of the sort of person that is
responsible for the Statist suffocation every honest individual in this
country must suffer through.  Forgive me if I have some fun at her
expense, and remember, tyrants fear laughter more than the assassin's
bullet.  Sic Semper Tyrannis.
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Re: Elected libertarians (was Re: Election results)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:22:03 GMT

  Bruce Martin proposes:

>  Instead of keeping silent until we actually have candidates on ballot,
>  I'd like to see the LP begin RATING officeholders and candidates of ALL
>  parties -- perhaps on an adapted Nolan chart, using selected issues where
>  they have taken a stand.
>
>  We should compute and publish the "Liberty Quotients" (TM) of ALL potential
>  candidates for an elective office, perhaps under the guise of "screening"
>  them for suitability as possible LP candidates.  (In most cases, follow-up
>  press releases would explain WHY they were all found to be unacceptable.)

     I think this is a great idea. Perhaps the Cato Institute could run this 
instead of the LP?

                                        Steve
///
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1919 rec.arts.startrek.current:18721 alt.politics.bush:13933
From: be173@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (J. William Snyder, Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Inauguration Speech
Date: 17 Nov 1992 15:15:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: be173@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (J. William Snyder, Jr.)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, emamid@athena.ecs.csus.edu (David Emami) says:

>
>
>"I am Clinton, of Borg. Your life, as it has been, is over. From this moment
> foreward, those of ability... will service... those of need."
>
>Though the media has pronounced resistance to be futile, do so with your last
>ounce of strength. (no smiley here)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"The needs of the many do not outweigh the rights of the few, or the one."
>"Absolutely out of the question. Governmental interference in the economy
> would violate the very essence of the Prime Directive."
>

Gee, as I recall, Reagan's 1980 inaugural speech went something like this.

"Greetings, repulsive humans! I am Ronald Reagan, Daemon of the Ferengi.
We, the Ferengi, have come to Washington to make America safe for
exploitation and profiteering by unscrupulous and deceitful capitalists!
Seeing the enormous potential for profit and gain, we could not resist
the opportunity to come and partake of what America has to offer. Our 
message to America is, 'Greed is good. Greed works!'"

:-)
-- 
J. William Snyder, Jr. (Will)
Class of 1992/The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Amateur Packet Radio: KB4LFD@N4CCK.#ILMNC.NC.USA.NOAM
Internet: SNYDER@UNCVX1.ACS.UNC.EDU
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1982 alt.society.anarchy:758
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:11:59 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Nov23.114632.25561@hellgate.utah.edu>  
galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
> I've never had to worry about starving, yet I work.  Are you saying that
> if starvation were not a possibility for you that you would stop working?
> 

If that were true of the populace as a whole, then public housing would be a  
utopia. 

--
Barry Wise
From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Help Dis Totenberg!
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:27:41 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: icat.larc.nasa.gov

mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:

>Yes, that Nina is a real tyrant.  I think you ought to teach her
>a lesson.  Call her a nasty name to see if she'll cry. 

Matt, cut the guy some slack.  If you had watched the INCREDIBLY biased
coverage that Ms. Totenberg supplied for the Hill/Thomas hearings, you
wouldn't be so quick to rush to her defense.  In fact, when Judge Thomas
was approved by the Senate, Nina looked like a three-year-old who had
had her lollipop taken away.  Regardless of your views on this issue, I
think you'll agree at least that we should be able to expect impartiality
from REPORTERS.  They are supposed to REPORT, not EDITORIALIZE, not
INFLUENCE POLICY, not MAKE THE NEWS THEMSELVES.

Asking a "reporter" a tough question that exposes her biases and
hypocrisies in front of a crowd is not at all wrong.  Isn't that what
reporters do to other people for a living?

-- 
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681
Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-7793,   Email: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov
PGP 2.0 Public Key now available -- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Subject: Re: Fraud in defense of rights
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:52:46 GMT

In article <FvH=F0+@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott H
aas) writes:
>Here's a difficult moral question for folks out there. I'm
>curious to know if the LP has an "official" answer to it.

I'm not a "libertarian", but Here is my thoughts on this.

>We have a right and a duty to disobey unjust laws, correct?

I would say that we habe a RIGHT to disobey an unjust law, we would only have 
a duty to disobey an unjust law that that would cause harm to someone _if_ we
obeyed the law. If obeying the law harmed noone, then we do not have a duty to 
break that law. We would have a duty to try to change the law.

>Does that mean that we have a right or even a duty to commit
>fraud in order to disobey these laws?

Your duty is to try to change the unjust laws, not to "get aroung" them.

>                                      For example: Taxes
>are unjust, is it therefore right to lie on your tax
>return so as to avoid the immoral burden?

Lying on your tax forms helps noone but yourself(and then only if you don't get 
caught;)), and it does not call atention to the unjust-ness of the laws. What 
you can do to fight these unjust laws is to:

(WARNING - WARNING - DOING THIS MAY GET YOU SENT TO JAIL FOR A LONG TIME)

           a) Join one of the groups that are fighting the tax laws,
           b) Dont file a tax form, or
           c) File a tax form that is blank, or
           d) Work in a job that does not report your wages to the IRS.

>                                           Having a legal
>minimum drinking age is unjust, is it therefore right for
>a minor to create, use, or even sell false identification
>for the purpose of appearing over 21?

You don't have the right or duty to forge government documents. What you could 
do to fight these unjust laws is to;

(WARNING - WARNING - DOING THIS MAY GET YOE SENT TO JAIL FOR A LONG TIME)

           a) Sell to those under 21.
           b) Purchase "bootleg" booze.
           c) Make it yourself.

With RIGHTS come RESPONSIBILITIES. If you are going to fight unjust laws, you
MUST be willing to pay the price.

-
-- 
If the price that I must pay to obtain my *  Robert E. Day/Syr Otto von    *
freedom, is to acknowledge that the Gov-  *  Schwartzkatz, Shire Mugmort   *
ernmet was granted the power to infringe  *  Barony Middle Marches,        *
on them, then I am not free. Paul Anderson*  Middle Kingdom                *
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: labeling laws
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:21:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.034120.12148@unmvax.cs.unm.edu> ctm@ardi.com (Clifford T. Matthews) writes:
}It
}seems to me that for a label to have made a difference, Mike has
}to document a case of someone who died from an allergic reaction
}to albumen in an alcoholic beverage *and* give us reason to believe
}that the person was aware of his / her allergy *and* also document
}that the deceased would have suspected alcoholic beverages enough
}to read the label, but didn't suspect alcoholic beverages enough
}to check with a support group for people with this type of allergy
}(even though the penalty for not doing so was in fact his or her
}death).

And that's not all.  The burden of proof he bears is, further, to show that
the cost of labelling was less than the benefits and that this cost should
be borne by those who aren't at risk from this allergy.

It's possible that labelling alchohol to say "If you're allergic to albumen
this will kill you" would be worth the cost to those who are allergic, but,
even if the cheapest way to prevent such deaths were through labelling and
not through some private support group for such individuals, it will be
quite difficult to prove that others are obligated to contribute to cover
the costs such that they may be coerced into compliance.

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

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: ingraham@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (James Ingraham)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Date: 18 Nov 92 07:38:51 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <10577@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>Just because we as citizens have a duty to obey the laws that are passed, it
>does not follow that therefore the government has the right to pass any law
>that it wants.
>

Great quote!  I like that a lot.  In fact, I think that may be at the very
heart and soul of libertarianism.  (But I could be wrong.  I *KNOW* I like
it!!!)

>-- 
>Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call 
>itself a government.
>It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Like that sig quote, too!.  Here's another one for you:
	"The masses are incapable of any great good and any great evil."
			-Paraphrase of Plato (I'd LOVE to find the real
quote, but I don't have time right now)

-James 
University of Pennsylvania
ingraham@niac.seas.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Marrou's puzzling vote totals: Why & consequences
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:42:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.063757.16601@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> }The Libertarians should not abandon unpopular causes, nor should they
> }dodge questions aimed at their support of unpopular causes.  But the
> }Libertarian Party is targeting too small a market when it emphasizes
> }issues such as drug legalization and ferret ownership.
> 
> I'll agree with you on ferret ownership, but not on drug legalization.  The
> last scientific polls I heard of found that about a third of the electorate
> supported this issue.

  I agree with this. Libertarians seem to be the lone voice of reason
wrt drug laws. Considering the erosion of rights we are experiencing
because of our ludicrious drug laws, *somebody* needs to speak out
lest we completely lose several BoR amendments. Hopefully, the perception
that the WoD is useless and indeed very dangerous will turn around
and libs will end up being on the right side of the issue in the end.
  There are already cracks in the WoD mentality with recent defections
of several Orange County judges to the anti-WoD/pro-decriminalization
as an example, though it is still *very* bleak. Libs should keep this
issue on the forefront stressing the 1920's prohibition failure and
the obvious rise in organized crime that went with it. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist these days to notice the parallels...
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:44:41 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <98158@netnews.upenn.edu> ingraham@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (James Ingraham) writes:
>In article <10577@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>Just because we as citizens have a duty to obey the laws that are passed, it
>>does not follow that therefore the government has the right to pass any law
>>that it wants.

>Great quote!  I like that a lot.  In fact, I think that may be at the very
>heart and soul of libertarianism.  (But I could be wrong.  I *KNOW* I like
>it!!!)

But is it true, though? Do we not have a duty to disobey unjust laws?

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1989 rec.arts.startrek.current:19101 alt.politics.bush:14005