HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.politics.bush
Subject: More Star Trek Carcicatures!
Date: 23 Nov 1992 04:08:05 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: beirut.berkeley.edu

Since Clinton has been parodied as a Borg, I was wondering which candidate
each of the galactical races would support.  Here's my conclusions:



Marrou-Libertarian:  The Ferrengi of course--the free market should rule 
                     supreme in the galaxy!  

Bush-Rebupblicans:  The Klingons.  They'd really go for that honor and 
                    family values thing. 

Perot-Independent:  The Ventaxians (sp?).  Ardrah is comming!  Ardrah is 
                    comming!  We will all suffer!
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Fraud in defense of rights
Date: 23 Nov 1992 10:47:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) says:

>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 don't know...but I'll give you *my* answers...

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

A right, yes.  A duty...depends.  I think I would have had a moral
duty to disobey the Fugitive Slave Law, or the Jim Crow laws.

>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?

I think it would be preferable to decline to answer, if you felt
that strongly about it.  Lying is wrong....that's a personal
evaluation, of course.

 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?
>
I think I would prefer to sell bootleg booze on the black market,
rather than commit an overt act of dishonest, assuming that I felt that
strongly about it.

>-- 
>__/\__  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.
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
From: goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold)
Subject: Re: The final results!
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:34:53 GMT

Here is a more accurate set of numbers. Percentages, parties and states have
been added by me, but the popular and electoral vote numbers are from the
Associated Press on 11/5. Again, if anyone has more information to fill out
the table, I would appreciate it. Note: it has been posted a few places that
some areas won't have accurate tallies until three weeks after the election
(in Tennessee, for example). One major change is Lenora Fulani's returns from
New York had originally been reported as 140,000+, but that was off by almost
130,000 votes.
--


candidate                    votes            party affiliations
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton          43,946,051 (43.1%)     Democrat, Liberal
  On all ballots          370 EV = (32 states + DC)
George Bush           38,070,308 (37.4%)     Republican, Conservative,
  On all ballots          168 EV = (18 states)  Right-To-Life
Ross Perot            19,258,910 (18.9%)     unaffiliated
  On ballots in 50 states
Andre Marrou             281,805 (2.77E-1%)  Libertarian
  On ballots in 50 states, Washington DC, and Guam
Bo Gritz                  97,721 (9.59E-2%)  Populist, America First
  On ballots in 17 states
Lenora Fulani             80,411 (7.89E-2%)  New Alliance
  On ballots in 40 states and Washington DC
John Hagelin              42,494 (4.17E-2%)  Natural Law
Howard Phillips           39,840 (3.91E-2%)  Taxpayers,
  On ballots in 20 states                       American Independent
Lyndon LaRouche           25,959 (2.55E-2%)  Independents for Economic Recovery
Ron Daniels               25,833 (2.53E-2%)  Campaign for a New Tomorrow,
                                                Peace & Freedom
James MacWarren           25,046 (2.46E-2%)  Socialist Workers
Drew Bradford              4,605 (4.52E-3%)
Jack Herer                 3,539 (3.47E-3%)  Grassroots
Helen Halyard              3,067 (3.01E-3%)
J. Quinn Brisben           2,789 (2.74E-3%)  Socialist?
None Of These [etc.]       2,525 (2.48E-3%)  none of these
John Yiamouyiannis         2,316 (2.27E-3%)  unaffiliated
Honest Jim Boren             980 (9.62E-4%)
Earl Dodge                   953 (9.35E-4%)  Prohibition
  On ballots in 3 states (Arkansas, New Mexico, Tennessee)
Delbert Ehlers               876 (8.60E-4%)  unaffiliated
  On ballot in Iowa (any others?)
Eugene Hem                   395 (3.88E-4%)
Isabell Masters        (tie) 395 (3.88E-4%)
Robert Smith                 290 (2.85E-4%)
Gloria La Riva               178 (1.75E-4%)  Workers
  On ballot in New Mexico
                     -----------
                     101,917,286
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Attack of the Clingore
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:16:16 GMT

In article <By52Hy.Kw8@world.std.com> wtinney@world.std.com (W E Tinney) writes:
}
}Is there anyone else out there who thinks the LP statement of 
}nonagression disallows violent action against a despotic US
}government?

Only as a last resort - say, after freedom of speech has either been repealed
or is no longer possible.

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,alt.politics.marrou
From: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan)
Subject: Re: No LP Presidential Candidate in '96!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Reply-To: sean@freds.cojones.com
Organization: University of Fairbanks, Alaska...no wait, that's not right...
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:02:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.034655.20405@tcsi.com>, mikec@calvin.tcs.com (Mike Curry) writes...
>In article <1992Nov8.051943.18011@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>> Why not take the resources that we're dumping into pointless Presidentia
>> campaigns and devote them to Congressional candidates?  

I disagree.  The place to start is in municipal elections.  But then
again, I have heard that some Libertarians refuse to vote in non-
partisan municipal elections because no one is running in these
elections as a Libertarian candidate.  But then again, I'm assuming
that these people are just hopelessly tied to the party and can't be
counted on anyway.

>In some other article that I can't find any more, someone else wrote that
>the Congressional campaign of June Genis for the "long" Senate seat for
>California was "one of the great missed opportunities of Libertarian
>politics", because so many voters were so appalled by the choice between
>Barbara Boxer and Bruce Herschensohn.
[...]
>The result of this race was particularly telling: the number of votes
>that Genis received, around 230,000, is about the same as the number
>that Andre Marrou managed to get *nationwide* for his $3 million!

Interesting.  But then again, I feel that this is still the wrong
approach to take in terms of gaining strength.  If I'm not mistaken, 5
candidates ran for each of the two U.S. Senate seats.  Only once did I
see any mention in the conventional media of any of the candidates 
outside of the four candidates of the one-party system.  Now
obviously, June did very well for herself in this election, but I have
reason to believe that she would have actually won office if she had
run for a lesser office.  Getting some media attention for yourself on
a large scale is fine, but it still has nowhere near the effect that
actually winning office and hoping to effect change on that level
does.

**********************************************************************
Sean Patrick Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan *** This account is expiring soon;
please direct all e-mail to sean@freds.cojones.com - thanks! *********
Oh, and did I ever tell you how much I want to fnord you?  :-) *******
From: ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca (ochealth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Libertarians in Canada? Elsewhere?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 04:34:08 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca



I'm curious about how far libertarianism is spread in Canada, or other
places outside the USA. I know there are Libertarian Parties in Canada,
but I want to get a better idea of how its distributed.

Also, I think I'm correct to say that libertarians have the most support
in the USA. Anyone agree/disagree?

-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
jpm: ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca         
                            Happily using OS/2 2.0 because MS Windows isNT ___
                                                      Insert VapourFeature ^^^
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: wtinney@world.std.com (W E Tinney)
Subject: Attack of the Clingore
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:29:57 GMT

I was having a conversation with someone the other day when a
subject arose about which I would like to hear some input from
other libertarians.  The dialogue went very much like this:

HER: Did you see "JFK"?

ME: Sure did.

HER: Did you like it?

ME: Yea.  Boy, wouldn't it be great to see another Oliver Stone 
   movie very soon in which we could sit and watch the heads of 
   both Clinton and Gore blowing up over and over again.  Just
   think of it: Back, and to the left.  Back, and to the left.
   Up, into the ozone.  Up, into the ozone.

HER: You're disgusting.  Besides, I thought you were in the LP.

ME: No.  I'm a libertarian but not a party member.  Why?

HER: Whatever.  I just thought libertarians were opposed to using
    force to promote their social agenda, and here you are pro-
    claiming how much you'd enjoy seeing the pres and vp get
     shot.  Is that why you never signed up for the LP?  Because
     you don't buy into the nonaggression principle?

ME:  No, I like the nonaggression idea.  But I think you missed
     a key word in the statement of the principle - INITIATION.

HER: Well what the hell do you call blowing the president's head
     off?  Self defense?

ME: Yes. Think of it this way:  As soon as the Clingore mouths
     the oath and a reasonable amount of time (say, a week) has
     passed in which people imprisoned for victimless crimes have
     not been freed, Congress has not been given an ultimatum
     to end all mandatory taxation, etc., etc., then the creature
     must be assumed to be not just the enemy, but the leader of
     the enemy.  Since we suffer in indentured servitude at the
     point of a gun wielded by the Clingore and its minions,
     killing it is justifiable retaliatory force.

SHE: You people are sick.

ME:  Hold on there, missy.  I speak for myself.  Most
     libertarians I know aren't as principled as I.

------

Is there anyone else out there who thinks the LP statement of 
nonagression disallows violent action against a despotic US
government?  Please don't give me all the reasons you may
think it's a *pragmatically* bad idea.  The question is:
Would violent action against government employees initiating
violent action against the citizenry necessarily be immoral?  Of
course, there are a lot of unstated caveats here.  But, just as
an example, I would say that the assassination of every US
president so far could be considered justifiable, so long as it
was done in retaliation of the violent force against US citizens
in which every US president has played a direct role.

Thanks for your time.



-- 
Government is a GUN.  If you're using it for something other 
than self defense, you should be shot.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Fraud in defense of rights
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 23:33:37 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

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

-- 
__/\__  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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jcc@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jeremy Caplan)
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 11:48:08 GMT

In article <XxF=FK_@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>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?

According to Socrates, you do not.
According to me, you do.

Jer

>-- 
>__/\__  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.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: rkanuit@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rebekah Kanuit)
Subject: Number of votes??
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:15:25 GMT



Hey does anyone out there know how many votes Marrou got?
How many votes Perot got?  Did either of them get any electoral
votes?  I'm writing a paper and it's due on Wednesday and I really
REALLY need to know the number of votes Marrou got..
I need help really bad.  I'm just a girl.. :)B

-----------------------------
Becky Kanuit
a.k.a. SNARLA
rkanuit@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
-----------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: Marrou's puzzling vote totals: Why & consequences
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 20:51:27 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Nov17.013653.25491@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>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?
>

Exactly, Steve! Extremely well-said.

The bottom line is this. We are a patient party. Convincing the people of
the general "rightness" of our ideas is slow but steady work. We will NOT
compromise our ideals. If your goal is to be elected, go be a Republican
or Democrat.

-- 
__/\__  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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: smcguire@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott McGuire)
Subject: Re: Unions (was Help Dis Totenberg!)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 20:38:02 GMT

mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:

>Michael T. Palmer writes:

>Now as to something that has to do with this Newsgroup, 
>(I have read the PREAMBLE, etc.)

>What is the Libertarian position on collective bargaining?
>Are there any regulations that a Libertarian would support
>in order to insure that those not possessing capital
>would be able to profit in proportion to their contribution?

Preventing fraud is an acceptable "regulation".  That is, makking sure
that those not possessing capital get whatever is agreed to in negotiation.
(And vice versa of course.)

>Should companies be allowed to replace striking workers
>with permanent replacements (I'm fairly sure of this one,
>but I wanted to hear someone elaborate)?
>--

Yes, unless a union has gotten the company previously to sign a 
contract prohibiting this.

>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

There is no problem with collective bargaining.  What libertarians
have a problem with is the state supporting one or the other side.  
These days that support is on the side of labor (well sporadically)
in the form of requiring federal projects to pay "the prevaling union wage"
and the "right" (read on) to collective bargaining.  In the past, the
government supported the other side, for instance using troops to end
strikes.  This change of sides is part of the reason for the confused
meaning of the "right" to collective bargaining today.  Originally,
getting the right ment that unions would not be prohibited.  Now it means
that employers must bargain with unions.  

Scott McGuire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Help Dis Totenberg!
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<92324.145958RSTERLI@auvm.american.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:21:18 GMT

In article <92324.145958RSTERLI@auvm.american.edu> Robert Sterling <RSTERLI@auvm.american.edu> writes:


   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.

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 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: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:04:25 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

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.

-- 
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
From: vvallopp@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Vinod V Valloppillil)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Elected libertarians (was Re: Election results)
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:49:03 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Nov13.205018.11874@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>P.S.  Here's a different, but related idea I've been trying to promote:
>
>  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.)
>
>  Any comments?

I had thought about this as well.  Sometimes I wonder if in '96 we could do 
more libertarian (small 'l') good by supporting (somehow or another) someone
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.

If, for example, the NLP doesn't have a libertarian candidate on the ballot
in a certain race, I really don't see too much wrong with the NLP endorsing
(before the flames start to hit me, I must state that there are a lot of
ways of 'endorsing' someone with out flat out saying so -- think about it).
At the very least the NLP endorsement will go unnoticed and at best it might
generate more publicity for the party and its causes.  

A good old-fashioned lesson in B-school is about vested interests and how 
once an organization is formed it's primary duty becomes survival as opposed
to it's actual social/business function.  I'd imagine that NLP support for
other candidate would have to fight this organizational bias.

It is possible that I could be wrong, however, b/c I don't really know all 
that much about the workings of NLP.


------------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Vinod Valloppillil            |
Systems/MIS  5-yr dual degree |  Libertarians are pro-choice on everything!
SEAS / Wharton                |
vvallopp@eniac.seas.upenn.edu |  Libertarian party info: (800) 272-1776
------------------------------+----------------------------------------------

Beware of watermelons:  Green on the outside, Red on the inside!