HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Matt Wette)
Subject: Re: Public schooling
Originator: mwette@mr-ed
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:31:46 GMT


I'll bet that one reason that private shools are able to do a better
job is that the parents feel that an education is important.  I know a
few teachers who teach in the LA school system and the feeling I get
is that many parents are apathetic when it comes to education.
Recently several LA-area school districts have had to take big budget
cuts.  The heaviest bitching from the parents didn't come until
athletic programs came into jeopardy.  Talk about priorities.

If you provided school choice and school standards (e.g., academic,
behavioral, etc.) then I'll bet the kids would be better off, in
general.  The kids/parents who want trade-prep go to a trade prep
school.  The kids/parents who want a college-prep education can attend
schools with kids who have similar desires and so on.  The kids who go
to school to cause trouble and just need a babysitter can go somewhere
else.  The point is to get the problem kids who make it impossible for
interested kids to learn *out*.

I believe that the reason private schools are more successful, in
general, is that the parents are more interested and the schools have
an easier time setting standards.

Matt
-- 
mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: ethridge@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Keywords: abortion,platform
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:04:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.191808.5614@sei.cmu.edu> ask@sei.cmu.edu (Alan Koch) writes:
>
>Sorry, I forgot about the second part.
>
>In article <1992Oct14.112134.26220@hemlock.cray.com>, khj@cray.com (Ken Jopp) writes:
>|> 
>|> Consider:  If my son needs a kidney transplant to live, and I 
>|> am the only available donor, should I be forced by law to give 
>|> the kidney?  
>|> 
>|> So why should a woman be forced by law to give of her body 
>|> to sustain a fetus?
>
>You are right about this delema.  I believe that moral obligation and legal
>obligation diverge in this sort of circumstance.  Donating is the morally
>correct thing to do, but legal requirements to do so would be inappropriate.
>
>BUT, this still differs from the mother/fetus question.  The mother did not
>cause the child to need a kidney transplant, nor should she have expected one
>to ever be necessary at the point where she decided to have a son.  Pregnancy
>is totally voluntary (except in the case of rape), and carrying to (near) term
>is ALWAYS necessary to insure the child's viability.
>
>Sorry, your argument falls short.
>
>ask@sei.cmu.edu
>
>Alan S. Koch
>Software Engineering Institute
>Carnegie Mellon University
>Pittsburgh, PA  15213

Pregnancy isn't always voluntary, even without rape.  Sometimes reasonable and
prudent methods of contraception fail.  In this case it can be said that the
woman did not "cause" the pregnancy.  Can i assume that you would agree then
that abortion would be acceptable?

What if a mother had caused her child's kidney failure?  If it was through
violence or child abuse it would be reasonable to charge her with a crime
and treat her accordingly.  But even in the case of criminal conviction is it
acceptable to force the woman to sacrifice her body to the child?  And what if
the cause had been involuntary - she gave her child a food that he was 
severely allergic to and she didn't know about the allergy (the contraceptive
failed)?  Should she still be forced to donate her body?

It seems to me that forcing one human being to donate her body to another is
a dangerous thing.  I don't believe in the slavery of one human to another,
regardless of the reason or the "cause" of the situation.

Of course, i'm also not comfortable with the idea that an unborn child deserves
full legal protection.  Gaining rights in most societies is a progressive
thing - they don't all come immediately at birth or especially before.  In my
mind a child that cannot live outside of its mother's womb cannot be protected
by the law - it is an appendage to the woman's body and is under her control.
-- 
allen@well.sf.ca.us
ethridge@bnr.ca
my opinions are my own
From: jkresse@ptimtc.tadw.panasonic.com (Jim Kresse ATVL )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: how do I sign up?
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:51:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Panasonic ATVL, Burlington, NJ

In article <ger5jnu00iUxI3dHNT@andrew.cmu.edu> Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>I just recieved information from the Libertarian Party.  At the bottom
>of the page it says "if you want to be a member send $25" and you get a
>book etc. My question is this: Do you have to send $ to be a member of
>the party? or are you considered a member if you have it on your voters
>registration card?  What's the money for anyway?  I'm all for supporting
>the party, but I can live without the book.
>Help!
>kb 
If you wish to become an "official" member of the Party, as
opposed to a voter who is registered as a Libertarian (where the
Election board allows it), or as a voter who votes for
Libertarians, you need to send the $ to the Party.  This is how
the Democrats and Republicans operate, too (I know, because
before I became a Libertarian, I was first a member of the
Democratic Party, then a member of the Republican Party).  (Also,
to confuse things further, each state also has its own statewide
party, which has its own membership separate from the national
party.)

The money is for things like the monthly newspaper (runs around
24 pp.), and operating the headquarters office.

You might want to check with HQ about the book.  Also, if you're
a student, you might check to see if they have a student
membership (I think I recall that such a thing existed at least
at one time).

To contact them, they advertise an (800) number for new member
info:  (800) 682-1776.  They also advertise an Internet address
of 345-5647@mcimail.com.

Good luck!

Jim Kresse
jim@atvl.panasonic.com
Standard disclaimers apply
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Real world example of society profiting from startup subsidies.
Date: 14 Oct 1992 19:05:26 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Oct13.001203.9405@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1bc1quINN75l@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>}It would be nice to see fewer posts with "giggle factor" factoids like
>}multiflora roses.  They are as bad as "golden fleece", "welfare queen",
>}"trees pollute", and "self-made man" stories.  When they are true, they
>}turn out to be exceptional cases at the ends of a bell curve: the question
>}is what does the vast majority of the area of the bell curve represent.
>
>True, but there's considerable anecdotal and scientific evidence that non-
>artificial pollution, fraudulent welfare cases, and self-made men are "the
>vast majority of the area of the bell curve" for health risks from pollution,
>total welfare cases, and the wealthy.

OK, provide that evidence.  I'll rephrase your one sentence into its three
empty claims.

1)  Non-artificial pollution is the "vast majority of the area of the bell
    curve" for health risks from pollution.

2)  Fraudulent welfare cases are the "vast majority of the area of the bell
    curve" for total welfare cases.

3)  Self-made men are the "vast majority of the area of the bell curve" for
    the wealthy.  (Note here that this wasn't appropriate to the meaning of
    my original comment, which was meant to indicate that relying on people
    to "make themselves something" is not practical, since the percentage of
    people who have Perot-like successes (even on a small scale) is minute.)

Mike Huben

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
						George Santayana

"Those who misremember the present are pleased to repeat it as `proof'."
						Mike Huybensz
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Public schooling
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:40:28 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1ast3uINNj1@armory.centerline.com>

>In article <1992Oct5.041411.3497@genie.slhs.udel.edu> 
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>(Tim Starr) astounds us with his typical libertarian grasp of reality: not!
>
>>USA's public school monopoly is a stagnant
>>monoculture, the biggest socialist atrocity left on the face of the earth.
>
>Wow!  Bigger than all of mainland China!  What a grasp of the FACTS!  Not!
>
>[...]
>
>Mike Huben

Actually, K-12 educational spending in the USA is $200 billion/year, while the
GNP of the People's Republic of China is $300-400 billion/year.

I guess that totally disproves libertarianism.  Shucks!


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: A couple of questions
Date: 13 Oct 1992 11:56:38 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


What are Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord's religious affiliations, if any?

Name some prominent Libertarians--CEO's, actors, writers, etc.

-- 
Dave Sill
Play: cf603@cleveland.freenet.edu
Work: de5@ornl.gov
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:07:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian

In alt.politics.libertarian, rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:

> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> >  First of all, no L.P. presidential candidate has ever exceeded 1%
> >  of the vote, so even if Marrou/Lord are doing that well this year
> >  and Perot is only doing 7% then Perot is still doing *7 times as
> >  well* as Marrou/Lord!   I would say that this IS "much better".
> 
> Perot has never exceeded 0% of the vote.

When has Marrou ever even polled that well.
> 
> >  Third, how do you know how well the Marrou/Lord ticket is doing?
> 
> How do you know he's not doing well?

He suggested himself that they expect to do better than last time, 
which was about 600k votes, I think.

So maybe they get a million max.  Yawn.

> 
> >  How many national polls have shown any L.P. support above the 
> >  margin of error?
> 
> Haven't seen on any national polls, maybe he's doing well and we
> don't know it.  "Other" is usually pretty high.

Doing well and we don't know.  Not bloody likely.  It is very
likely that he is not going to do much better than about 5% of
the vote best case.

Should he be in the debates?  Yeah, probably.  But who cares?


doug 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:772 talk.politics.theory:4487
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Economic Discrimination in Libertaria:  banks
Date: 10 Oct 92 12:50:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


Question:  do studies like the following affect the (original) debate
on the likelihood of economic discrimination in Libertaria absent
anti-discrimination laws?

-----
info taken from the Boston Globe Friday October 9 1992:

"Study shows racial bias in lending"

A landmark study released Thursday shows that banks in Greater Boston
discriminate against Black and Hispanic mortage applicants, offering
the most damning evidence to date of racial hurdles facing minority
homebuyers.

The study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Bostn concluded that
minorities are roughly 60% more likely to be denied a mortage than
whites even when they are equally creditworthy.

Bankers have criticizes similar reports in the past for not taking
into account important financial factors in lending decisions, but
industry leaders accepted the new study.

The new report, the first of its kind in the nation considers 39
criteria that go into mortage decisions, such as credit and employment
history, total debt and net worth.  Bankers said that the absence of
those factors from earlier reports made conclusions suspect.

Although the study focused on Greater Boston, the authors said they had
no reason to beleive the findings would be different elsewhere in the
country. 

Researchers found that *80%* of all applicants, regardless of race,
have some flaw that could disqualify them.  That means it is in the
hands of individual bankers to decide whether the bulk of would-be
homebuyers receive loans.

"Given the same imperfections, whites seem to enjoy a general
assumption of creditworthiness that Black and Hispanic applicants do
not" said Alicia Munnell who presented the report along with the
president of the Boston Fed, Richard Syron.
-----

Well.

--
Peace.
         "Sex between a man and a woman can be wonderful,
          provided you get between the right man and the right woman"
	                           --Woody Allen
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:32:43 GMT

In article <7256@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar)
writes:

>If we could interrupt this econo-religious discussion [...]

>Rate the following economies in order of gov intervention into business
>(import restrictions, subsidization, direction a la industrial policy)
>
>1  US
>2  Germany
>3  Japan
>
>Answer:
>1  Japan (most intervention)
>2  Germany
>3  US  (least intervention)

I don't believe you.  Back it up.  And don't go spouting off about religion and
then post a bunch of unsupported nonsense that I'm supposed to take on faith.
If I want that, I'll go to church or watch the news.

Also, some types of intervention are surely more harmful than others, so you
can't just quantify the number of laws and regulations and expect to draw
accurate conclusions.

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:44:49 GMT

>My thinking is starting to turn in this direction also, after several
>years of voting for the "least bad" of the demopublican (or are they
>republicrats?) party's candidates.  I am even thinking that it might

I prefer republicrats as it flows better.

>be appropriate to vote for libertarians in those races in which they
>are running, and NO ONE in the others.  I would think that this would
>help indicate that the demopublican party is totally unwanted.
>					- Dave

Dave I would disagree with the NO ONE part. If there is no lib available
I would like to be able to have a part in damage control. I look at the
candidates stand on the issues. I have three major issues that concern
me (along with several minor issues). If no Libertarian is available
then I would look at the other choices. If they differ on an important
issue then I vote for the candidate that best matches my ideals.

				mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: matheys@dxds08.cern.ch (Jean-Pol Matheys)
Subject: Re: European Democracy (was: Why did Denmark ...)
Reply-To: matheys@online.cern.ch
Organization: CERN - European Laboratory for Particle Physics
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:11:56 GMT


In article <1992Oct8.155325.24012@eua.ericsson.se>, etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
(Peter Lund) writes:

>Yes, I agree also that the parliament should have been strengthened in the 
>Maastricht treaty. I sorry it wasn't, but I guess you can't get everything 
>at once. Maastricht is only the first of many steps on the road to a real 
>union.
>
>It is not good enough, just letting the governments speak for each country.
>The other half of the population in that country, is then not spoken for in
>the EC power structure. If the parliament had more power, the opposition in
>all countries would also have a voice in Europe. Every citizen would feel 
>that he/she is represented.

There was a good opportunity to increase democracy somewhat in the direction
you mention: the creation of the "Committee of the Regions". Indeed, in some
countries at least,  there are wide enough political differences between the
regions they are made of for different (if not contradictory) opinions to be
voiced by the regions instead of a single one by the country. Unfortunately,
the Committee has no power (it only has advisory status) and its members are
not elected but appointed by the Council !!!  One may wonder why such a body
was created with so little care for democracy...

Also, for "every citizen [to] feel that he/she is represented" it would have
been a good idea to introduce the concepts of the right of referendum and/or
initiative (as exists in Switzerland). Not at the european level (of course)
but, again, at the level of the regions. Another "acte manque".

The Treaty is definetly not a step towards increased democracy. One may even
fear it turns into a step in the opposite direction.

Just my two centimes...

--
Jean-Pol Matheys

CERN - European Laboratory for Particle Physics
ECP Division  /  Data-acquisition Systems Group
CH-1211 Geneva 23 - Switzerland

HEP DECnet   online::matheys
Internet     matheys@online.cern.ch
X.400        C=ch;ADMD=arcom;PRMD=cern;O=cern;OU=online;S=matheys;

Tel          +41.22.7674719
Telefax      +41.22.7677155
Telex        419000 CER CH
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas)
Subject: Re: France
Reply-To: ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE
Organization: SUNET, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 13:48:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.103749.21624@enea.se>, sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
> Well, Eric is Swedish, and I have sadly found it not uncommon
> in Sweden with a negative attitude towards France and the
> Frenchmen.

*bzzzt* Wrong answer again. I have the misfortune of being French. Furthermore
you seem to have little experience with your fellow countrymen. Most Swedes
have a very positive attitude towards France, especially the ones who have
never been there. It is difficult to find girls below 25 who are not attracted
to France and the Paris fashion, the romantic evenings, the unshy French guys,
and so on. The ones with a negative attitude are usually those who have been
there and were harassed by spr{ngk}t French guys whose tongue fell to the floor
a la Tex Avery when they learnt the girl was from Sweden :-)

> Why I don't know, but I suspect it has something
> to do that the Swedish school system only teach a minority to
> speak French well.

Here you may have a point... I remember you now! It was about 3 years ago I
think, you are the guy who kept answering English messages in French on a
number of international newsgroups in order to show the world how strongly you
believe that you belong to this select minority :--------------)

  Eric
From: Peter.Gorny@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Peter Gorny)
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:56:05 GMT

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.155034.8983@eua.ericsson.se>, etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund) writes
>|> 
>|> A well functioning democracy, is a country where firstly all basic 
>|> democratic demands are satisfied, e.g. freedom of thought, speech 
>|> and meeting. Regular elections a.s.o. 
>|> 
>|> But "well functioning" includes much more. A resonable educated 
>|> population, a large and totally free press with a large flow of 
>|> information that reaches >95% of the population, a long democratic 
>|> tradition, free people that can afford to use their freedom and 
>|> tolerance in the society.

>But now you've hung all kinds of ancillary properties on the
>side of Democracy.    It's no longer Democracy, period, but
>a Democracy with, among other things "tolerance in the society".
>It's no longer any period of history, but the twentieth century
>only.   It's no longer just a voting population, but a well-
>educated voting population.

Please take into account that "democracy" is not a state but a process --
a learning process mostly. A country/government/people cannot "be" demo-
cratic, it can "act" / "behave" democratically, or learn to do so.

What Peter Lund defines, is the "mature democracy". Take any of the democracies
of today and you will find that they only fulfill the definition to some degree.
Some certainly more than others....
All of the countries have to mature with respect to democracy, I believe.

Peter


-- 
.     ________________________________________________________
      Snail-Mail:    P.O.Box 2503 - D-2900 Oldenburg - Germany 
      Voice:            +49-441-798-2901 or -4521 (Fax: -2155)
      E-Mail:     Peter.Gorny@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE 
      ________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec