HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge? (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:38:13 GMT

In article <parvin1.727909950@husc.harvard.edu> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
}bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
}
}
}>In a previous article, sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) says:
}
}>>Would someone please post some of the objections to the pledge?  I didn't 
}>>really have a problem with it, and I'm curious as to why anyone would object 
}>>(note that I wouldn't have signed the pledge without that key word 
}>>"initiation"...is it that there are some versions of the pledge without that?).
}
}6) It goes against the principles of a large number of libertarians who
}support the down-sizing of government because it is by nature wasteful,
}unimaginative, corrupt, etc.  These libertarians might not have a beef with a
}theoretical utopian government that didn't exhibit these traits, but believe
}that it is impossible in practice due to human nature, lack of individual
}motivation, etc. Therefore, they pragmatically support a libertarian agenda  
}and feel alienated by the categorical universality of the pledge.  They do
}not hold to one shining guiding principle.

Such people simply aren't libertarians, but conservatives.  There's no reason
why we should make the LP a safe haven for conservatives.

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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sals@florimel.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:56:22 GMT

In article <1jpl85INN697@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike  
Huben) writes:
> In article <SLAGLE.93Jan21170557@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>  
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
> >In article <1jf5nbINNpsv@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com  
(Mike Huben) writes:
> >
> >> I love the way libertarians are so inconsistant with each other
> >> and even themselves.
> >
> >Since you are so familiar with applied logic, and so fond of the
> >Socratic method, perhaps you will favor us with an answer to some
> >questions:
> >
> >What species of fallacious reasoning attempts to generalize from
> >the specific actions of particular individual members of a group
> >to an implication that all members of that group share a
> >proclivity to act in such a manner?
> 
> Induction.  A fallacy I haven't committed here, because it only requires
> two members of a class to demonstrate inconsistancy, not all the  
members.
>
Not quite. Induction requires that if the inital member of a class has a  
property and you assume an arbitrary member of the class has a property  
you can prove the next member of the class has that property. You cannot  
use induction in this case. (BTW please learn some logic. You accuse  
others of logical fallacies which you constantly misapply. Logic and set  
theory are the basis for modern math so it souldn't be hard for you to  
brush up just find a decent intro analysis book)
> >Which one is it that implies that a property of all members of
> >a group is peculiar to a particular subset group?

BTW if all members of a group have a property then each member of every  
particular subgroup has that property.
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:16:00 GMT
	<1jkflhINN3pc@armory.centerline.com>
	<1993Jan20.215456.367@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
	<1k1lfqINN29n@armory.centerline.com>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: mrh@centerline.com's message of 25 Jan 1993 21:18:50 GMT

In article <1k1lfqINN29n@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

> Maybe indirectly.  Let me state my point more clearly.  We KNOW
> that tit-for-tat cooperation is not the optimal solution for
> many series of prisoner's dilemma games, two of which I
> presented.  We know from real life that in cases such as these,
> cooperation is disadvantageous.  Hope that "It's not necessary
> to have government intervention to make people cooperate...
> they will do it themselves, knowing that in the long run it is
> in their best interests" is naive.

Of the many factors that are ignored in your analysis, there is
the matter of uncertainty.  Unlike your safe and predictable
model of interpersonal interactions, the real world situation is
somewhat less tidy.  In the first place, the payoff matrix may
not be well established prior to the transaction in even the most
benign cases.  For a simple example, it isn't possible to know in
advance what someone will be willing to sell or buy an item for,
so you can't calculate the payoff until you are well into the
negotiation.  For a somewhat more sinister case, a thief doesn't
have any way of knowing in advance how much money is in the till
or in the pocket of the prospective victim until he is already
committed to the criminal act.  This act has both an indeterminate
penalty and an indeterminate payoff.

But the real monkey wrench in the system is that even if the
payoff is reasonably predictable, the game is a dynamic one, not
the safe static one that you propose.  As every con man finds out
sooner or later, there is always somebody out there who is
willing to modify the payoff, so to speak, in the negative
direction upon discovering he has been had.  Such a person may
break your fingers, or he may rearrange your face, or he may just
quietly slit your throat for you.  And people who have been taken
have unusually long and vivid memories.  You can just never know
when you might accidentally run into one of your marks where you
least expect it and where you're no longer in control of the
game.

Those who are so "naive" as you suggest don't have to worry about
such things.  But the wise guys who think they are smarter that
everybody else just end up being unable to trust anyone else and
they end up spending a lot of their time looking over their
shoulders.  That's a 100% predictable cost that's not factored
into your game either.

So who's really being naive here?

=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: brown@pollux (Daniel Brown)
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Organization: University of Georgia
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:53:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.001100.6277@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
>
>You haven't been reading this newsgroup then. I've seen
>postings from several people saying they are libertarians but
>not LP members who would reconsider if the LP scrapped the
>pledge and took a more solutions-oriented stance.

Here's one.  Actually, I wouldn't mind so much if they eliminated the pledge
as a requirement for membership, but I believe that a candidate for office
running as a Libertarian should be required to sign.  In fact, I would
probably not renew my membership if that were not so.  I don't want to
support someone who doesn't agree with the NCP.

-- 
Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu, dbrown@ai.uga.edu)
From: rwn@po.CWRU.Edu (Richard W. Nelson Jr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: SLICK TIMES
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:46:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


     A new publication out of California called the "SLICK TIMES"
will satirize and otherwise have great fun with Bill Clinton,
Hillary and their administration. It is in a 12 pg. format, and
comes out 4 times a year. For more information or to subscribe,
call 1-800-93-SLICK.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:34:36 PST

In <77729@stanton.UUCP>:


>I just thot I'd answer the question posed by the subject line.

>The question is, "Why can't liberals admit that public education has
>failed?"

>I have a statistic from the School Voucher advocates here in California.
>According to them, 1 out of 6 high school graduates are illiterate.

>Well, now that means that 5 out 6 are literate ... 84%!

>If I remember correctly, 84% is a B+, well above passing grade!

Well, if you use the traditional 90/80/70/60 scale, then 84% is a B, not a B+.
In any case, it doesn't feel like a B or a B+ if you're one of the 16%, does
it?


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
"Schutzstaffel!"   Blam!   Blam!   Blam!   "Mein Leben!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: New idea for school vouchers
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:01:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.175905.24431@bluemoon.use.com> grant@bluemoon.use.com (Grant DeLorean) writes:
>David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>>>The old cost was 90K*6K =540M.
>>>The new cost is 60K*6K + 40K*4K=360+160= 520M.
>
> I like this new math... 90,000 - 60,000 = 40,000...  (or is that
>90,000 - 40,000 = 60,000?)  Can I use this on my tax return this
>year?  ;}

You took this out of context: the 'missing' 10K consisted
of students currently in private schools, and therefore under
the current system not costing any Govt money. As in:

(revised) The old cost was 90K*6K + 10K*0K =540M.
The new cost is 60K*6K + 40K*4K=360+160= 520M.

Got it?

>>>So, there is a savings using the voucher plan - or alternatively,
>>>more money to apply to the public schools.
>
> Hopefully to the mathematics programs...

... and apply them to bolster the reading comprehension programs ..:-)

Pat
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Date: 28 Jan 1993 23:23:22 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: vongole.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan27.231513.26145@zip.eecs.umich.edu> positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:
>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>Hahahaha!  That's why one Libertarian party plank was to hold a gun to
>>taxpayers' heads to finance school vouchers, right?  
>
>Mike, ol' friend, you *really* ought to learn to do a bit of research
>before you assert. The following is taken from the Libertarian party
>platform:
>
> [planks deleted]

Mr. Huben, with his usual two-faced demopublican zeal, was no doubt
trying to twist around the recent discussion in which some libertarians
committed the heinous sin of suggesting that a voucher system might
be better than the current disaster known as public education.

Mr. Huben, who likes to accuse others of engaging in fallacious
argument, cannot even prevent himself from confusing a discussion in a
newsgroup with an official party position. he also seems not to
understand the basical logical fact that saying A is better than B does
not mean that A is one's first choice on the matter.

>Notice that there's not a word in there about vouchers. Note also that
>the words "complete separation of education and State" are completely
>incompatible with idea of vouchers. While some who call themselves Libertarians
>may be in favor of vouchers, and while some Libertarians may view them
>as a good interim measure, vouchers are *not* a libertarian idea, and
>it is certainly *not* libertarian to favor government coercion to provide
>education.

don't confuse him with facts! he's made up his mind!

>>I don't think you could have said something that sounded more stupid if you
>>had tried.
>
>In the field of saying stupid things, I abashedly acknowledge that you are
>the resident expert, and defer to you completely.

why Mr. Huben insists on filling our newsreaders with his brainwashed
same-old-shit socialistic big government nonsense day after day is beyond me.
maybe someday he will figure out that he isn't making any converts here
and take his shears back to the flock he loves so much.

-=-
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Objections to the Pledge?  (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:46:35 GMT

Would someone please post some of the objections to the pledge?  I didn't 
really have a problem with it, and I'm curious as to why anyone would object 
(note that I wouldn't have signed the pledge without that key word 
"initiation"...is it that there are some versions of the pledge without that?).

--
Steve Conley                       "Jupiter:  America's dairy land!" --MST3K
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu    | Disclaimer:  OSU is too damn big to
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian! |              have any opinions at all.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The big difference
Date: 21 Jan 1993 14:36:54 GMT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <1jklsnINN3rl@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan18.052324.10297@zip.eecs.umich.edu> positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:
|> >I want a world where I can rule over myself, and everyone else can mind
|> >their own business.
|> 
|> As soon as you declare something to be your property, you are denying others
|> use of it.  Thus, you make it our business to regulate what is your property
|> (at the very least, lest you or any group impoverish the rest.)
|> 
|> Libertarians complain that they never have signed a contract for the current
|> government.  Well, I don't know anybody who has signed an agreement for a
|> system of property either.  Want to do away with both?  :-)
|> 

Do you believe that rights exist only because a government (or
'society') created them?  Or do you believe that there are at least
some rights which a person has simply because they exist?  I believe
property rights fall into the latter category, therefore there is
no need for a signed agreement because the rights simply exist.
For example, suppose you like gardening and you build a garden.  A
neighbor decides that he could make better use of the space and
builds a shed on it.  Is it ok for the neighbor to do this?  You've
potentially spent a great deal of time building and tending your garden,
only to see it wiped out by someone else with no regard to what you have
done.  If there are no laws against this, do you simply accept this,
or do you feel that something is wrong and things like this shouldn't
be allowed to happen?  



James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage.
Date: 28 Jan 1993 15:36:03 GMT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <1k6rjuINN59o@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
|> In article <1k1bumINN8e5@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >Hmmm, in a previous post you claimed that people have no rights other than
|> >what the government grants.  Since the government did not grant any rights
|> >to slaves, slave owners were clearly not denying slaves their 'rights',
|> >correct?
|> 
|> Please be careful not to misrepresent me to make your argument.  Feel free
|> to cite anything I've written to establish your premise.  (I believe you made
|> this claim before: I just haven't had time to rebut it.)
|> 

From a previous post (of which I no longer have the original, I asked
the following question to which you answered in the affirmative:

"In article <1jpj4jINN689@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike
 Huben) writes:

 > I wrote:
 > >
 > > Do you believe that rights exist only because a government (or
 > > 'society') created them?
 >
 > Yes."

Feel free to clarify your position.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
~
~

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: DDFr@Midway.UChicago.Edu (David Friedman)
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: University of Chicago Law School
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:02:54 GMT

I would like to add two points on the subject of the "pledge."

1. My personal objection to it (the reason I would be reluctant to sign it,
as opposed to any reasons I might think it a bad idea for the party to
require it) is not that I am a "consequentialist" rather than a "natural
rights" libertarian, but that I do not believe it states a correct natural
rights position. This is not because it is badly written but because, in my
opinion, the subject of rights is too complicated to be summed up in any
short statement that both says something substantial and is true. I think
almost any thoughtful person who has signed the pledge could be convinced
that there are some (imaginable although perhaps implausible) situations in
which he would be in favor of initiating coercion. That is why, on the one
occasion many years ago when I wanted to be an LP member (in order to
attend a convention as a member--I no longer remember why I wanted to do
that), I footnoted the pledge on my application form with something along
the lines of "I believe this statement is only an approximate statement of
a correct ethical position."

On the more general question of "consequentialist" vs "natural law"
libertarianism, I prefer to use consequentialist arguments not because I
believe natural law arguments are wrong or meaningless but because I belive
that much more is known, and I in particular know much more, about
economics than about moral philosophy. I can, however, imagine situations
where I was convinced that action X had more desirable consequences than
action Y (in utilitarian or similar terms), yet chose action Y for moral
reasons--which is one reason I do not call myself a utilitarian.

2. A number of people have discussed whether there is objective evidence
about how libertarians feel about the pledge. Liberty Magazine, some years
back, published the results of an extensive poll of libertarians. While I
do not think they asked people how the pledge affected their willingness to
join the LP, they did ask questions related to whether people really
believed in an absolute non-aggression principle. 


David Friedman
University of Chicago Law School
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: Good Samaritian ??? 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:27:04 +0000

In article <DCHRISTY.93Jan25111245@boron.boron.cs>
            dchristy@boron.boron.cs writes:

>P.S. OOPS! Guess what, I didn't check my spelling or grammer before posting
>     my 'Good Samaritian' story, if I made some mistakes it would be awful to
>     have them distributed even further arround the world. Please be kind
>     enough to bail me out here. Thanks again.

I'll run it through the WordStar spellchecker, if you don't mind
American spellings (is boron.cs really in middle Europe?).  Then I'll
put it on my mailserver...

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge? (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
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: Thu, 28 Jan 93 06:07:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.070032.6080@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>False dichotomy.  The post I replied to said "a libertarian agenda," not
>"THE libertarian agenda."  That said, someone who doesn't believe that
>freedom of speech is absolute doesn't believe in free speech, and someone
>who doesn't believe that coercion is absolutely impermissible isn't a
>libertarian.

How can one "believe" free speech is absolute? That's plain silly.
Almost as silly as the pledge which says "...I do not believe
in... the initiation of force..." Yeah, right. I don't believe bullets
kill.

I _think_ what you mean is that someone who doesn't advocate
absolute freedom of speech does not advocate free speech. Sorry
to repeat, but that's plain silly. I suppose you would agree
with the statement "Ludwig von Mises did not advocate absolute
liberty, thus he did not advocate liberty." Plain silly.

I also object to your attempt to claim that the definition of
libertarian is 'one who categorically rejects initiation of
force.' If that is the definition of libertarian, every single
one of the LP's presidential candidates were committing fraud.
Fortunately your definition is not shared by most people.

For the purposes of the LP the definition of libertarian should
be one who supports free markets and personal freedoms. I will
support any candidate that supports this practical libertarian
agenda. Whether someone claims to categorically reject the
initiation of force is much, much less important. Anyone can
claim to believe anything. I'll judge people by their actions.
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "Get it on my own"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: brown@pollux (Daniel Brown)
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?  (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Reply-To: dbrown@ai.uga.edu
Organization: University of Georgia
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:49:29 GMT

In article <1kFl77#1yYYGs75m1Hd1OcQv36qM6B6=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>In <1jt6a7INNk8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Brandon D. Ray wrote:
>> 4.)  If taken literally (as it often is) it cannot be signed in good 
>> conscience by minarchists, since *any* gov't involves at least the 
>> possibility of the initiation of the use of force...for one thing, you have
>> to oppose all taxation, for any reason, in order to be true to the oath...
>> yet a person could be willing to accept limited taxation as a necessary
>> evil, still accept *every* other plank in the platform, and not be
>> able to sign the pledge.
>
>Minarchists should take this is a big, neon-lit *clue* that there is a
>dangerous contradiction in their belief system.

Not all minarchists are willing to accept limited taxation.

-- 
Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu, dbrown@ai.uga.edu)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian