HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: individual rights and responsibilties
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:08:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.234606.3245@eecs.nwu.edu> ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland) writes:


   In article <1992Nov4.232415.28470@EE.Stanford.EDU> bill@isl.Stanford.EDU (Bill Moore) writes:
   >How can we just say "OK,
   >government back off, we're on our own now", when these inequities
   >exist?

   >Bottom line, I don't think the world is ready for libertarianism.
   >People are too mean to each other.

   I think you are truly sadly mistaken if you think that government is
   going to solve the problem of people being too mean to each other.  If
   anything, I think government will exacerbate the problem.  I personally
   have no interest in trying to make people be nice to each other, but
   even if I did, from a purely pragmatic point of view, government is not
   the tool I would use to accomplish that end.
   -- 

I've got no problem with your reasoning, but it's my opinion that a
lot of people can't fully support the Libertarian policy because it
"appears" to be a "let the strong survive" philosophy.  You may argue
that the weak are getting screwed now and would be better off than
under the current system and furthermore that it's not the
government's role to worry about this, but this is a perception that
is not acceptable to some.
--


Matt Landrum                    | mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "There's a fine line between 
Starkville, MS  39759           |  stupid and clever" -- Spinal Tap
From: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian - NOT! (was Re: Gun Control)
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:14:59 GMT
 <1992Nov2.115317.3950@memstvx1.memst.edu> <rs83468@zola.esd.sgi.com> <1992Nov2.234454.3955@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Organization: The Software Distillery
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 beta rel2

In article <1992Nov2.234454.3955@memstvx1.memst.edu>, kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

> Or is it that you could *have* a non-liberatarian local government,
> so long as you called it a "neighborhood association" ;-)?

They'd be free to call their group anything they want.  They could tax their
people as much as they wanted to.  They could build whatever infrastructure
they wanted to.  They could even build jails to put their citizens in.  As
long as the people consented to be governed they could do anything they want
to their followers.

Of course, if they initiated force against their followers, all the follower
would have to do is ask for help.  I'm sure plenty of people in the greater
society would be willing to come in there and kick some butt.

> *(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.       * B/Q '92!      *
> * \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu     * VOTE GOP!     *
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                          Given no choice I'm sure many people
                                          would have, but there was this 
                                          incredible sucking sound....
--

 |_o_o|\\
 |. o.| || The           Jay Denebeim
 | .  | ||  Software
 | o  | ||   Distillery
 |    |//        Address: UUCP:     duke!wolves!deepthot!jay
 ======                   Internet: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us
		 If the above bounces try: uunet.uu.net!oichq!deepthot!jay
                 BBS:(919)-460-7430      VOICE:(919)-460-6934
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Inauguration Speech *Flames*
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 00:12:08 GMT

In article <1dbl39INNptd@news.aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Nov5.023020.10982@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> >foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> ...
> >> 
> >> If I point a gun at someones head and say give me your money, most 
> >> people will do so without regard to how much money they have or 
> >> have not at home or in the bank.
> >
> >i didn't say greed was stronger. i said more effective. with
> >fear you have to put a lot of effort into getting people to do
> >what you want, and they'll rebel at the first possible opportunity.
> >appeal to greed and not only will they do the work for you, but
> >they'll continue to do so as long as you provide incentive.
> >
> 
> Not really! Much of the motivation in many workplaces comes from fear.
> Fear that one might be laid off, fear that the boss will criticise, fear
> that the boss won't give a good performance writeup etc.
> 
> I agree that fear is not a highly effective motivator, especially for 
> intellectual work. Fear tends to inhibit clear thinking except about the 
> cause of the fear.
> 
> Greed however is also not the best motivator for achieving common objectives.
> Greed tends to make people discount the well being of the organization in 
> preference to their own. A greedy person will destroy the usefull work of 
> several other if by so doing he can foster his own career.
> 
> The best motivator of all is a belief in the intrinsic worth of what one
> is doing!
> 
> Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
> 
> 
> 
> >jason
> >
> >--
> >`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
> >`,`       "Every great gift is a kind of curse." - Camille Paglia       `,`
> >`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
> 
> 

Strange to see this in rec.arts.startrek.current, but here's my $0.02 worth.

Richard,

You almost got it right ;-)

It should be "The best motivator of all is a belief in the intrinsic worth of
what one is doing *and getting paid well for it*"!

Happy Trails, ya'all.

Don Palmrose






========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1590 alt.society.anarchy:656
From: x551_003@ccvax.ucd.ie
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: the most equitable economic system
Date: 4 Nov 92 16:56:28 GMT
Organization: University College Dublin

Capitalism works ????!!!!?????

Capitalism is an international system, the fact it buys you a
car, a house and a reasonable jobs proves nothing. Even the fact
that your town/country/continent is ok proves nothing. However

1.  Capitalism has been unable to develop at all a significant part
of the world.  many countries still suffer from periodic famines
and rely entirly on the export of cash crops.(I would argue this
in fact is part and parcel of capitalism brother Imperilism)

2.  Capitalism has left many countries including my own
underdeveloped.  We currently have an unemployment rate
of 20%++ and 1/3 of our population lives below the
poverty line.

3.  Capitalism (of the market variety) has been unable to develop
the Eastern European economies.  They were crap under state capitalism
they are closing down under market capitalism.  Even Germany, one of
the most vibrant capitalist economies has failed so far to develop
Eastern Germany to any significant extent.

4.  Capitalism is still prone to periodic crisis.  The latest one shaking
the worlds economies at the moment demonstrates how little control anyone
has over the beast once it runs amok.

5.  Capitalism still cause wars that result in the slaughter
of millions of working people.  Iraq was just one example of this
, there are countless others.

6.  Capitalism divides one section of our class against another
and hence maintains the oppression of women,racism and other
oppressions.

Need I go on. !!!!

It is true that no other economic system has yet replaced capitalism
for any period of time.  It was however once true that no economic
system had ever replaced feudalism.  Eventually however it happened!!

Andrew
___________________________________________

My views do not reflect my employers

E-Mail ANFLOOD@IRLEARN.UCD.IE
Post   PO Box 1528, Dublin, Ireland
Organization: Senior, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 10:39:25 -0500 
From: Jason Ari Goldstein <jg3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: President by popular vote?

Point of information:

President Lincoln was elected with only 39% (or maybe its 36% I'm going
from memory) of the popular vote.

Take for what you will, but IMHO he did a damn good job.

Later...

Jason A. Goldstein
___________________________________________
I'm a peripheral visionary...
I can see the future but only off to the sides.

Over, Finished, Gone, Done, Out.  (Finally)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: individual rights and responsibilties
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:46:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.232415.28470@EE.Stanford.EDU> bill@isl.Stanford.EDU (Bill Moore) writes:
>How can we just say "OK,
>government back off, we're on our own now", when these inequities
>exist?

If there are a lot of people in a country who want to help the poor,
they can do so without the government putting a gun to their heads,
right?  I tend to believe they'll do a better job of it than the
government too.  If there aren't, then what business does the
government have enforcing a policy on people which is so unpopular?
You seem to feel that the only way poor people can be helped is if the
government helps them.  If there are really so few people in the
country with enough compassion to help the poor without a gun being put
to their heads, I think the poor have no hope, government or no
government.

>Bottom line, I don't think the world is ready for libertarianism.
>People are too mean to each other.

I think you are truly sadly mistaken if you think that government is
going to solve the problem of people being too mean to each other.  If
anything, I think government will exacerbate the problem.  I personally
have no interest in trying to make people be nice to each other, but
even if I did, from a purely pragmatic point of view, government is not
the tool I would use to accomplish that end.
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1750 alt.society.anarchy:693
From: thom@crayfish.ucsd.edu (Thom Cleland)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Date: 8 Nov 1992 06:15:30 GMT
Organization: Tenuous at best
NNTP-Posting-Host: crayfish.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Nov3.200153.29333@b30.ingr.com> craig@jido.b30.ingr.com writes:

>   You need to discuss this with a real marxist.  You will find that
>   marxists view themselves as agents of liberation, and that's why you
>   find them in the LP.
>
>Please name one, or retract this. Absent evidence, it's arrant
>nonsense. Very bad form for someone who claims to apply Reason to all
>aspects of life.
>
The core of Marxism is liberation.  Remember, the philosophy predates
the mutant form consecrated in the travesty of the Communist state.
Whether or not one thinks Marxism has anything real going for it, its
intended role is as a philosophy of liberation, primarily the liberation
from the economic power of capital.
.
With all these mutually antagonistic philosophies of liberation running
around, it's a surprise that there isn't more actual liberty.  Kind of
reminds me of the Judean Peoples Front vs. the People's Front of Judea.

>-- Craig Presson

Thom

-- 
Thom Cleland     \ /^^/  >Neural systems/network physiology< >Amigaphile<  
(619) 453-7516    \OO/  >Aoinagi Shito-ryu == bend, and the wind passes <
tcleland@ucsd.edu  ++  >B3 f cdv g++ k+(+) m s+ r+ p growl+ purr++ zzz- <
"Wild magic is graven in every rock, every tree, in every blade of grass" 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Why????
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:16:21 GMT

I think a lot more can be learned by listing a wide range of opinions
on different political issues and then asking people to classify them
as libertarian, liberal, conservative, socialist, etc.  I think there's
a big difference between what people perceive us to be and what we
actually are.  Once it's clear what people's perceptions about us as a
party are, we can act to dispell people's mistaken ideas.

Also, as far as just a general "sell" is concerned, I think the Political
Quiz with the diamond graph on it is a good method.  A lot of people are
surprised to find out how Libertarian they are, and they're a lot more
receptive to the rest of our ideas once it's clear that they agree with
us on a lot of things.

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1773 alt.politics.marrou:2187
From: aa396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill Henley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: This Stupid "LaRouche is a Lib" Thing
Date: 10 Nov 1992 01:32:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


So libertarians are part of LaRouche's Great Conspiracy, huh?
How about that -- that means that I personally am a member of
the Conspiracy through TWO separate branches.  The L-5 Society
space advocacy group, to which I used to belong, also was
accused by LaRouche of being part of the conspiracy.  (I was
even president of the local L-5 group for a couple of years,
and was a bit peeved that the higher-ups never got around to
telling me about the conspiracy and cutting me in on a few of
the perks :).

-- 
Bill Henley, Assistant Sysop, Cleveland Free-Net Science Fiction
& Fantasy SIG (aa396)
From: chrisp@regenmeister.Sun.COM (Chris Prael)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Environmental laws - in principle.
Date: 12 Nov 1992 17:28:34 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: regenmeister

From article <JEFFT.92Nov11094119@chirality.rsa.com>, by jefft@chirality.rsa.com (Jeff Thompson):
> 
> 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?

The basic Libertarian principle is that government has legitimate
purpose in stopping or preventing an individual from damaging another
individual or his/her property.  That, to me, means that government
can prevent or stop you from "pissing in someone else's nest".  If
pissing in your own nest has some overflow to the next person's nest,
you have pissed in their nest.

So, yes.

Chris Prael
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:03:36 GMT

In article <1diba2INN752@network.ucsd.edu> thom@crayfish.ucsd.edu (Thom Cleland) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.200153.29333@b30.ingr.com> craig@jido.b30.ingr.com writes:

>>   You need to discuss this with a real marxist.  You will find that
>>   marxists view themselves as agents of liberation, and that's why you
>>   find them in the LP.

>>Please name one, or retract this. Absent evidence, it's arrant
>>nonsense. Very bad form for someone who claims to apply Reason to all
>>aspects of life.

>The core of Marxism is liberation.  Remember, the philosophy predates
>the mutant form consecrated in the travesty of the Communist state.
>Whether or not one thinks Marxism has anything real going for it, its
>intended role is as a philosophy of liberation, primarily the liberation
>from the economic power of capital.

Yup.  That's why just CLAIMING to be for liberty isn't good enough.  You need
to be able to define just what you mean by the term.

>With all these mutually antagonistic philosophies of liberation running
>around, it's a surprise that there isn't more actual liberty.  Kind of
>reminds me of the Judean Peoples Front vs. the People's Front of Judea.

The reason is what I have been writing about all along.  Just because
someone SAYS he's "for liberty" that doesn't mean he really is.  In fact,
a great many advocates of "liberty" (such as the anarchists and anarcho-
communists) are actually proposing exactly the opposite of liberty.  Heck,
Al Gore claims to be a champion of free market economics!!  Does that make
him a pro-capitalist?

--Brian

Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1730 alt.society.anarchy:685
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:19:46 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov9.013859.20028@vela.acs.oakland.edu> w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee) writes:

|>In article <37571@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

|>...

|>>no gains for the rest of the world, plus no capital accumulation, which
|>>is the source of production. In short, you advocate poverty for all,

|>...

|>>Property ownership is decided, in a free society, by those who have *worked*
|>>and saved up enough money to buy it. Land in general falls under this

|>...

|>So which is it, Jim?  Capital accumulation, or *work*?

No contradiction here, you have to work in order to accumulate capital.
Some people work harder, some people work smarter, but either way, no
work, no capital.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objectivism?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 12:45:58 GMT

In article <Bx5DIB.J2C@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
}
}The result of ignoring this is that the LP contains "advocates of liberty"
}who mean a thousand different things when they use the word "liberty".
}There are even "Libertarians for Life" out there who oppose abortion.
}
}--Brian

Led by Doris Gordon, who does so on Objectivist grounds.  She's wrong, but
at least she isn't a hypocrite.


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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1621 rec.arts.startrek.current:17614 alt.politics.bush:13160
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Inauguration Speech *Flames*
Date: 5 Nov 1992 17:19:37 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Nov5.023020.10982@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
...
>> 
>> If I point a gun at someones head and say give me your money, most 
>> people will do so without regard to how much money they have or 
>> have not at home or in the bank.
>
>i didn't say greed was stronger. i said more effective. with
>fear you have to put a lot of effort into getting people to do
>what you want, and they'll rebel at the first possible opportunity.
>appeal to greed and not only will they do the work for you, but
>they'll continue to do so as long as you provide incentive.
>

Not really! Much of the motivation in many workplaces comes from fear.
Fear that one might be laid off, fear that the boss will criticise, fear
that the boss won't give a good performance writeup etc.

I agree that fear is not a highly effective motivator, especially for 
intellectual work. Fear tends to inhibit clear thinking except about the 
cause of the fear.

Greed however is also not the best motivator for achieving common objectives.
Greed tends to make people discount the well being of the organization in 
preference to their own. A greedy person will destroy the usefull work of 
several other if by so doing he can foster his own career.

The best motivator of all is a belief in the intrinsic worth of what one
is doing!

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer



>jason
>
>--
>`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
>`,`       "Every great gift is a kind of curse." - Camille Paglia       `,`
>`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian