HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sturnbul@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen J Turnbull)
Subject: Re: The word "Libertarian" was invented by Spanish Anarchists
Organization:  Yaseppochi-gumi, a division of Skinny Boy Associates
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:45:28 GMT

In article <1986kmINN6ks@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>Japan has NOT set up virtual monopolies: I can name at least 4 Japanese
>manufacturers in each of the above three markets, all competing.
>
"Virtual" is one of them there words that means what you want it to
mean.  The Japanese manufacturers in Japan *do not* compete as a
professional economist (like me) would define it.  They engage in
*essentially all* of the practices enjoined by our (and their!)
anti-trust law.  For my money (will you accept yen?  my income is in
yen), a cartel qualifies as a virtual monopoly.  In the domestic
markets, all of Japan's major export industries are cartelized.  It is
true that unlike the American trusts the Japanese holding
organizations do not hold any single cartel in its entirety or even
majority.  However, entry is much more difficult than it would be in
the United States.
    Whether these organizations are "true virtual" monopolies really
depends on whether for the purpose at hand (determining those causes
of Japanese economic success that are relevant to discussions of
libertarian philosophy and policy) a "virtual monopoly" must pay all
its profit to a single entity.
    I vote we strike "virtual monopolies," substitute "effective
domestic cartels," and accept that Japan's business success is in
large part derived from a very libertarian policy of letting big
businesses contract with each other as they will.
    As noted above, the quoted material is by
>
>Mike Huben
>
----
Stephen J. Turnbull  /  Department of Economics  /  THE Ohio State University
"Why 'THE'?  IMHO, good thing there's only one!!"  My opinions are *mine*.
For more info on finding me, try "finger Turnbull.1@OSU.Edu".  For more smoke
and less light, try "finger turnbull@ecolan.SBS.Ohio-State.Edu".
-- 
Stephen J. Turnbull  /  Department of Economics  /  THE Ohio State University
"Why 'THE'?  IMHO, good thing there's only one!!"  My opinions are *mine*.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: Michael F. Kamprath <kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Child Abuse in Arkansas
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 14:45:42 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Aerospace Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6ECCB992901C4FC@sprl-mac2016.sprl.umich.edu>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 28 Sep 92 14:47:53 GMT

In article <Bv8szB.Fzy@encore.com> Roger Collins, rcollins@encore.com writes:
>(Rebecca Rhodes) writes:
>>Why would anyone wish to support a governer [Clinton] who's state is one of
>>the leading states in corporal punishment?  You know, where they paddle
>>public school children's behind with a wooden paddle heavier than a wooden
>>baseball bat and wider.  Sometimes with holes in it so it stings?
>
>I won't vote for Clinton or Bush because they both want to solve the
>nation's problems with more government, when the obvious answer is less
>government intervention.  (I'll vote for Marrou.)  However, I went to
>school and received corporal punishment once during my schooling.  I
>fully support it in a reasonable, consistent disciplinary system.  As a
>child, I never had any doubt about whether or not I could get away with
>what kids get away with today.  Getting "licks" from the principal was
>the most severe punishment except for suspension and expulsion.  I'm
>glad I was in a public school that demanded reasonable behavior and I'm
>glad I wasn't expelled.
>
>From one who has experienced it, calling corporal punishment child
>abuse is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
>

Don't be so sure.  I swear some of my teachers in my younger years
got off on spanking.  Not that I was spanked alot ;-)

>Since this alt.politics.libertarians, I guess I should point out that
>Libertarians support your sending your children (and other people's
>children if you and they consent) to a school that educates children in
>the way you approve.  In other words, this whole issue should not be a
>government issue; it should be a teacher/school/parent/child issue.

When I become a parent (ha ha ha ha, anyways), corporal punishment is one
area where I'd demand "more government" in the form of witnessess to the actual
spanking.  But like you said, such a demand should be a 
teacher/school/parent/child issue.


========================================================================
| Michael F. Kamprath                   | The University of Michigan   |
|   kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu |      Aerospace Engineering   |
|   kamprath@engin.umich.edu            |                              |
|---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Never, never, never drink two 40-ouncers of St. Ides in one night    |
|                                   --Michael Kamprath                 |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: conroym@news.colorado.edu (Matthew Conroy)
Subject: Re: "Child Abuse"
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:25:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.235754.27587@cirrus.com> lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis) writes:
>
>If a child misbehaves in class and disrupts the educational process, he
>deserves to be spanked/paddled whatever.   
>


This seems quite inconsistant with libertarian ideals...

The child is forced by the state to attend school, and then
is violently attacked by those employed...the child never
agreed to obey any rules, with or without threat of
violence...

I wonder why some seem to feel that individual rights (whatever
those are) do not extend to children.

(I +really+ wonder about that 'whatever'...)

matt

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Education (Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:29:55 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Sep29135346@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
}
}Maybe I'm not asking the questions right.  One of the things that
}worries me is that some of the "choice"  proponents haven't really
}thought this thru:  evaluate, if you don't mind, how these various
}choices and approaches to the problems above will actually change the
}current distribution beyond "the Free Market(tm) will just make it
}work".  After ten years, will we basically have the same set of school
}options with the kids who have it worse now having it worse then?
}What are the short term costs?  The long term benefits?

After ten years, there'll be across-the-board improvements by such measures
as performance tests.  I'd bet money on this.  Innovative schools with diverse
managerial structure and curricula will arise.

}What are the *REAL* problems with our education system.  From where do
}they come?  Do vouchers, choice or whatever address all of these?
}None of these? Some of these?  Does it provide us with the same system
}at lower cost?  A better system for more money?  Will it in all
}likelihood increase the average but widen the range?

The funamental problem is that there's no rational basis for determining the
allocation of resources such as supplies, teachers, etc., since there's no
market pricing.  Vouchers do, indeed, address this.  We'll have a better
system of schooling at a lower cost.

}
}What are they?  In the real world, why would I care to vote
}libertarian if they are mroe concerned with the theory than the
}practice?  Ready to accept in free market approach as an end unto
}itself without worry of the impact or the methods for phasing the new
}systems in?

It's not that we accept laissez-faire as an end in itself, but that you're
asking us to predict the unpredictable.


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:566 alt.society.anarchy:351
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: You can't, and shouldn't TRY, to control the economy.
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:44:29 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


All attempts to justify economic intervention using mathematical models,
such as static equilibrium, dynamic equilibrium, or even chaotic
attractors are logically flawed from the start.

When economists write down mathematical equations, they are not
describing some underlying physical mechanism in terms of 'utility' or
'value.'  All they are doing is cleverly encoding past economic events.
These may afford the economist (or the businessman) genuine insight into
the nature of the subjective values of consumers as expressed in the
marketplace, but only to the degree that the economy isn't affected by
changing preferences, new technology, entrepreneurs discovering new
economic opportunities, etc., i.e. stuff that cannot be embodied in
mathematical equations.

From Human_Action by Ludwig von Mises, p. 701:

    The mathematical economists are almost exclusively intent upon the
    study of what they call economic equilibrium and the static state.
    Recourse to the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy
    is, as has been pointed out, an indismensable mental tool of economic
    reasoning.  [He writes extensively on what he calls static and evenly
    rotating economies, about which I am not going to quote.]  But it is a
    grave mistake to consider this auxiliary tool as anything else than an
    imaginary construction, and to overlook the fact that it has not only
    no counterpart in reality, but cannot even be thought consistently to
    its ultimate logical consquences.  The mathematical economist, blinded
    by the preposession that economics must be constructed according to the
    pattern of Newtonian mechanics and is open to treatment by mathematical
    methods, misconstrues entirely the subject matter of his
    investigations.  He no longer deals with human action but with a
    soulless mechanism mysteriously actuated by forces not open to further
    analysis.  In the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy
    there is, of course, no room for the entrepreneurial function.  Thus the
    mathematical economist eliminates the entrepreneur from his thought.
    He has no need for this mover and shaker whose never ceasing
    intervention prevents the imaginary system from reaching the state of
    perfect equilibrium and static conditions.  He hates the entrepreneur
    as a disturbing element.  The prices of the factors of production, as
    the mathematical economist sees it, are determined by the intersection
    of two curves, not by human action.

That the mathematics used has increased in sophistication since
this was written is irrelevant to the point it makes.

thant
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1992Sep29.223953.26882@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1992Sep30.091620.6641@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<9389@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
	<1992Oct1.094807.8167@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<9409@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:53:01 GMT

In article <9409@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
   I don't know of any libertarians who support the elimination of anti-trust
   laws.  Except maybe the extreme anarchist wing.

Although all of them (as far as I know) would eliminate the anti-trust
sections of the public prosecutors.  Which would (in practice) make it
nearly impossible for individuals to take action based on them.

More subtly, how did the anti-trust laws get in place?  They aren't
part of the common law, they are statute law, enacted in response to
the excesses of the late-1800s capitalists.  If you endorse the
anti-trust laws, you have to admit that the legislature can regulate
the marketplace, at least in order to preserve it *as* a marketplace.

You run into similar problems with anti-pollution laws -- libertarians
would like to eliminate government regulation, and replace it with
direct tort lawsuits.  Unfortunately, I can't afford to sue every
driver in LA to force them to put catylitic convertors on their cars.
(It's not even clear that if I could, I should be allowed to.  One
eco-nut with a thing about global warming could eliminate fossil fuel
burning in the entire world...)

Dale
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:553 alt.politics.marrou:1433
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Please let Marrou debate!
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:35:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <BvIE1F.3wH@csn.org>, lgibes@teal.csn.org (Lawrence R. Gibes) writes:

> >  Send letters of concern to:
> >
> >     Janet Brown
> >     Executive Director
> >     Commission on Presidential Debates
> >     601 13th Street NW, Suite 310 South
> >     Washington, DC 20005

Or call 202-872-1020 and ask for Denise.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:17:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct04.232046.12197@CS.ORST.EDU> clarkmi@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Michael Clark) writes:
}My compliments to the participants on what has got to be one of the
}longest, most involved, most voluminous Usenet arguments I've ever
}seen.  But then I haven't been on the net very long.
}
}My question is this:  why do Libertarians favor a voucher system 
}that still involves the coercive appropriation of taxes from the
}citizenry for the funding of educational insitutions?  Why not
}advocate a completely free market in education, without any 
}government involvement?

Because abolishing the public schools isn't possible now.  We favor ultimate
privatization of both education delivery and financing.  Now we can only get
delivery, which has been conclusively proven to work both in theory and in
practice, so we favor this as an interim step in the right direction.


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: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:58:14 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ISBELL.92Sep28232318@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

>leonard@mimsy.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens) writes:

>|Obviously they will stay where they are, and for that year, they will
>|be frustrated.  Meanwhile, though, things may be happening!  For
>|instance, their parents may be down at the PTA railing about how
>|Exclusivity High teaches calculus and has a dress code, and gets
>|regular 1600 SATs... this may help to change the local system so that
>|eventually, the local students don't want to leave any more.

>Why doesn't that happen now?

Have you ever tried to get the school system to change.  With the
current monopoly system they know that they have your kid whether
you are happy or not.  Unless of course you are "rich" enough
to afford a private school.  Firing incompetent teachers or administrators
is darn near impossible.  If you think that a dress code and teaching
calculus is important but the administrators of your district do not,
then you are out of luck.  If the administrators of the district down
the street from you happen to agree with you, you are still out of
luck since there is no way for you to transfer your child to the
district down the street.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:459 alt.society.anarchy:283
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:10:41 GMT
	<1992Sep29.223953.26882@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1992Sep30.091620.6641@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<9389@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
	<1992Oct1.094807.8167@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<9409@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM's message of 1 Oct 92 18:56:50 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|GA:kicking in your door to search your house is not.  Oh, yeah, I forgot,
|GA:you had a choice when you signed your employer's contract--you could
|GA:sign it and give up rights, or you could starve.  

|MW:Or you could choose to sign on with another company.

|GA:Unless all companies used the same standard contract.  Remember, there
|GA:would be no anti-trust laws to prevent companies from joining together
|GA:to preserve their common interest.  Try to get a credit card now...

|I don't know of any libertarians who support the elimination of anti-trust
|laws.  Except maybe the extreme anarchist wing.

Why not?  In the end, this is just minimizing the regulation, right?
This is a good issue perhaps for me to feel out the movement:  why
isn't the elimination of anti-trust laws good?  Aren't the laws
themselves interference in the free market--a victimless crime?  What
other forms of intervention are permissible?

As to the number of libs who support this, he may have a skewed view
from the Objectivists on the net?  I must admit I'm suprised to hear
(read) your assertion about the anti-trust laws and I've been reading
the net and hearing the Lib position on such things for, well, four or
five years now.

|How about if argue about what libertarianism stands for, instead of what
|you want it to stand for.

Hmmmmm.  This bears repeating, in general, with "libertarianism"
replaced by any number of positions.
--
Peace.
          "Until the lions have their historians,
           tales of the hunted will always glorify the hunter."
                        - African proverb
                                   -\--/-
    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: jbn@photon.photon.com (Joe Naiman)
Subject: Re: How many libertarians are in office?
Organization: Photon Research Associates, Inc.
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 23:58:58 GMT

I understand that two New Hampshire state legislatures, originally
elected as Republicans, are now Libertarians.

In California, a South Bay Municipal Court (San Diego County) judge
reregistered as a Libertarian.

Also in California, a Simi Valley City Councilwoman and a Calaveras
County Supervisor were elected "despite" Libertarian affiliation.

Joe Naiman
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:38:39 GMT
	<9409@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
	<ISBELL.92Oct2111635@panther.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Oct3.141455.27405@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu's message of 3 Oct 92 14:14:55 GMT

nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
|>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>|I don't know of any libertarians who support the elimination of anti-trust
|>|laws.  Except maybe the extreme anarchist wing.
|>
|>I do.  I just asked one:
|>
|>ME:  Are you a Libertarian?
|>HE:  Yes.
|>ME:  Do you support the repeal of anti-trust laws?
|>HE:  Yes.
|>
|>Of course, he may be of the extreme anarchist wing (as opposed to the
|>non-extreme anarchist wing).  Wait, I'll ask him.
|>
|>ME:  Do you consider yourself a part of the extreme anarchist wing?
|>HE:  No, I'm not an anarchist.
|>
|>Oh, well. (I swear, this just happened as I typed it in--punctuation
|>mine).
|>
|><insert smilies and apologies for wasting bandwidth>

|Actually, I've never heard of a libertarian who _did_ support anti-
|trust legislation. If there's one here, would you please post about
|it?

Well, if Mark Wilson is a libertarian then there's one.  I'd be
interested to know other libs who do.  I would have thought it an
obvious derivation fromt he central positions.

Of course, Libs aren't Objectivists.
--
Peace.
         "It's rural America.  It's where I came from.  
          We always refer to ourselves as real America.  
          Rural America, real America, real, real, America."
                      -- Vice President Dan Quayle
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:580 alt.society.anarchy:359
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:42:38 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <BvpDnL.so@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>
>The other argument about the time value of money just doesn't make sense.
>The potential competitor won't compete if he can make more money faster
>somewhere else?  So what.  If he won the lottery, he might stop working
>all together.  If the gouger is making such high profits, there will
>certainly be several entrepenuers not making as much, even considering
>the time value of money.

No, that's not what I mean.  There is a real immediate cost to enter a market,
higher for some markets than for others.  It's entirely possible that this
cost exceeds the value of ALL projected future profit.  So it's not a small
profit in the future, but rather a net loss.  The further away each
projected profit, the less it's worth.  A little common sense should let
you see that this series must be convergent, otherwise all ventures would
have an infinite immediate value.  What you say holds true in most cases,
but can break down in markets with high start-up costs.
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu