HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:46:22 GMT

In article <robc.17.0@wicat> robc@wicat (Rob Carlson) writes:
>In article <C0nwxF.2GI@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
: So what, capitalism has very little to do with free markets. The unregulated
: free market quickly becomes a monopoly.

>	I'll need further illumination on this argument. It seems to me that 
>a monopoly is impossible in a free market. There is absolutely nothing to 
>prevent another company from competing with the one attempting to be a 
>monopoly. To obtain a monopoly you will need to get a government to write 
>laws and regulations that keeps others out of the market. It seems that the 
>regulated market is the one that causes monopolies. It is always interesting 
>that more regulation is the usual prescription for the failings of a
>regulatory policy.

	Monopolies can arouse by other routes than government
intervention.

	One is by controlling all sources or the only source of some
natural resource. Thus, a company that owns all the oil wells in some
particular area monopolizes the oil production in that area. True,
this type of monopoly is vulnerable to (say) some rival company
discovering oil elsewhere, but if no rival company can, then the
company gets away with it unless some government decrees that it be
broken up or nationalized.

	Another is by squeezing rival companies out of business by
price wars and corporate acquisitions. In California in the late 19th
cy., the Southern Pacific railroad company used that tactic to make
itself a monopoly in much of California, by buying up rail lines,
ferry services, etc. It received an abundance of criticism over
exorbitant freight rates and slow passenger trains (one newspaper
grumbled that its passengers risked senility on its trains). The SP
was ultimately less than successful, because other rail lines, such as
the Western Pacific and the Santa Fe, were eventually built into
California.

	So scapegoating government won't lead anywhere.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:17:56 GMT


In a previous article, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) says:

>alt.rush-limbaugh
>Subject: Rush Limbaugh: Is He For Real?
>Reply-To: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
>References: 
>Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
>
>Is Rush Limbaugh a liberal masquerading as a conservative?  Could he be
>a genuine conservative hired by the liberals to make conservatives look
>bad?
>
>The reason I ask, he seems to be a big wind bag continually running off
>at the mouth.  Does this help the conservative movement in this country?
>Or does it just make us look like idiots?
>
>I agree with almost everything he says, but then I feel like a fool for
>listening.  
>
>And why doesn't he ever talk about the things Pat Buchanan was talking
>about?  Why doesn't he rant against the United Nations like a good
>conservative should?  Why won't he ever let a caller bring up the topic
>of the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission?
>
>Perhaps most puzzling, why does he speak so glowingly of George Bush?
>George Bush wasn't much more conservative than Ted Kennedy.  That's why
>he lost the election.	
>
>Is Rush Limbaugh really a conservative, or is he just masquerading as
>one?


About 6 months ago, Larry King came up with this theory.  He supposed that
Limbaugh, along with Pat Buchanan and Pat Pobertson were in fact liberal
moles, whose job it was to infiltrate the Republican Party in order to
drive the more moderate voters (both republican and democrat) from its ranks.

Whether it is true or not, the result was the same.



>-- 
>
>
>--------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------
>------------ John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.edu -------------
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- abort, retry, ignore?)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: The Bedorck Royal Order of Water Buffaloes
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:26:40 GMT

What: <1993Jan8.155205.2234@wam.umd.edu>
Who:  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)

First he says...

>	Any decision that an individual makes that is out of line
>	with the general populous is suspect unless there's a lot
>	of evidence or logic on the side of that decision.

And *then* he says...

>	I don't think most people are competent to control their 
>	credit card spending, let alone interpersonal acts like
>	sexuality.  

He praises the collective wisdom of the gneral populace, then
turns around and impugns it.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Is Private Charity That Effective? (was Re: "New Right" Libertarians?)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:37:46 GMT

In article <1is1f4INNkgg@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.092637.7245@microsoft.com> leecr@microsoft.com  
>(Lee Crocker) writes:
:  Food, shelter, medicine, all the basic necessities of life are the
:  products of work.  There is no evidenc that private charities can't
:  take care of those unable to work--indeed there is ample evidence  
>that
:  they do so much better than governments do.  

>A number of libertarian posters keep saying this.  Can somebody
>provide some of this "ample evidence."  

	I suspect that they probably can't. If you have seen some of
the scandals involving some private charities in recent years, it is
evident that some charity executives and administrators are as big as
they come in being money hogs.

	Furthermore, if private charity was so effective in taking
care of the down-and-out, then I'm sure that private charitable
organizations would have put government welfare agencies out of
business years ago. And FDR would never have had to come up with
Social Security (every American's favorite welfare program) if private
charity had been so super-effective in the Great Depression.

	After all, where's the law stopping them?

	And there is a joker in the deck that many non-US citizens
will no doubt find amusing. While just about anyone or anything that
receives a direct subsidy often gets suspected of some serious moral
defect, everybody _loves_ tax breaks, which are an indirect subsidy.
In other words, direct subsidy bad, indirect subsidy good. Here in
America, one can get a tax deduction for a charitable contribution.
Thus, private charities get an indirect subsidy. So one either has
full public subsidy (welfare, Social Security, etc.) or a partial
subsidy ("private" charity).

	I would also like to ask how many of those who give to various
charities would be equally generous if there was no tax break for such
giving.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: WAR IN BOSNIA!!!!
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:38:43 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan7.052013.27090@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In <C0E9KH.n3u@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>>In article <1hrf1oINNq74@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck442@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Floyd Low) writes:
>
>>>not until just lately have they taken a real interest...as you say
>>>G Bush and Coy are probably going to do something...I think they can
>>>deal the belligerants a High explosive wakeup call with little
>
>>    Don't you think that using High explosives against
>>    the belligerents is kind of belligerent in itself and would
>>    only add to the number of belligerent in the region?
>
>Only if you're such a pacifist that you regard self-defense as "belligerent."

    Self-defense?  Have the U.S. been attacked by the Serbs?  

...
>
>Gee, and I thought it was *Serbia* who has, so far, attacked Slovenia,
>Croatia, and now Bosnia.

    You were mistaken:

    Followed Mr.Baker's statement that the US would never recognize
    Croatia's and Slovenia's independence, the (Serbian-dominated) 
    Yugoslavian Army indeed tried to prevent the two from seceding,
    but no more.

    As far as I understand, Serbia never attacked Bosnia, or did it?
    The Serbians comprising about 40% of the Bosnia's population
    decided to secede rather than live in the Islamic Republic
    of Bosnia, and so did the Croatians (~17%).  The Bosnian
    Muslims (~43%) wanted the whole B-H for themselves, 
    and that is how it all started.

>
>The political map of Europe has plenty of room for Bosnia.  It has no
>room, however, for Greater Serbia.

    I'd say, there is room for both Bosnia and Serbia, but no room
    for Greater Bosnia, nor Serbia, nor Croatia for that matter.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Follow the money" Deep Throat
Disclaimer: Other opinions are mine only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,or.politics,alt.politics.elections,misc.headlines
From: wandac@sequent.com (Wanda Chauncy)
Subject: Oregon Third Party holds Founding Convention
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 23:51:21 GMT

             Announcing the Founding Convention for the

                Independent Initiative Party (IIP)

In accordance with OR state statute 248.006 the IIP became a MAJOR
POLITICAL Party in Oregon when Ross Perot received 24.4% of the
Presidential vote last November.

The IIP is hereby announcing our Founding convention to be held on

        Saturday, January 16th, 1993

        Quality Inn
        3301 Market St.
        Salem, Or

        Registration is from 7:30 - 9 am

Come join us and make Oregon history!  The convention begins at 9 am
and lasts until business is completed.  Anyone interested in attending
is welcome;  only those registered in the party will have voting
privileges.  You may register in the party at the convention.  We
will be discussing and voting on our party's principles and officers.

For more information call 503 321-5149.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Is Private Charity That Effective? (was Re: "New Right" Libertarians?)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 09:41:00 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan11.190055.26061@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan11.173746.4280@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> }Social Security (every American's favorite welfare program) if private
|> }charity had been so super-effective in the Great Depression.
|> }
|> }	After all, where's the law stopping them?
|> }
|> Tax laws, of course.  The more money the goverment takes out of your pocket,
|> the less you have to spend or donate.
|> 
|> As far as the depression is concerned, if gov't hadn't prevented interest
|> rates from rising there would have been less speculation in the stock
|> market, thus mitigating the crash.
|> 

A bigger factor was the contraction in the money supply.  At a time when
increased supply would have helped basically solid banks stay
solvent, the Fed reduced the money supply causing numerous banks to
fail.

|> }
|> }	I would also like to ask how many of those who give to various
|> }charities would be equally generous if there was no tax break for such
|> }giving.
|> }
|> 
|> Tax deductions, including those for charitable contributions, have been
|> decreasing.  And even with close to 50% of all income going to taxes (all
|> taxes for every level of gov't), the American public still donates about
|> $90 billion every year.  
|> 

Total giving as of 1990 was more like 120 billion.  In inflation adjusted
numbers, giving has increased from approximately 40 billion in 1960 to
120 billion in 1990.  During the 80's, giving rose at a rate much higher
than the trendline from 1960 - 1980 would have suggested.  It is also
important to point out, that while giving has increased dramatically,
marginal tax rates have declined.  This has the effect of making a
charitible deduction worth much less today than in the past.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: national debt? why?
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:50:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.1778.29517@channel1>
"john lovett" <john.lovett@channel1.com> writes:

>This suggestion may be a little simplistic, but perhaps someone could
>flesh it out.
>
>We have a large national debt, but since we owe it to ourselves, why not
>declare that we forgive ourselves the debt, and forget about it?

       "We" do not owe "ourselves".   The Federal Government owes a
fairly substantial (but by no means all) portion of the debt to private
citizens.
        Do *you* own U.S. Savings Bonds?  Know somebody who does?  I
know more than a few who've got their entire savings wrapped up into
"investing" in America.
        It's not a case of "us" forgiving ourselves.  It would be a case of
the federal government reneging on billions (perhaps trillions) of
loans by individuals who may be counting on being paid back.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67429 alt.activism:20513
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:32:32 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network



In article <1993Jan11.073351.27541@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan10.225331.21995@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >In article <C0nwxF.2GI@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
|> : If you want to claim that the free market has never been tried then fair enough.
|> : However every approximation to the free market has failed. Without governement
|> : intervention in the market there would be only on oil producer (standard oil),
|> : one telephone company (AT&T), one steel company and one motor manufacturer.
|> 
|> >What a monumentally bad example.  AT & T only grew as big as it was _because_ 
|> >of goverment interference in the marketplace.  It was a goverment-enforced 
|> >monopoly.  History shows that there were many competing phone companies before 
|> >AT & T persuaded the goverment to outlaw them.  And the very day that it was
|> >legal to compete against them they had competitors.
|> 
|> 	I would like to see the full story on that sometime.

I'll run it down and post it.

|> One of
|> the difficulties in having several competing phone companies is how to
|> connect from one to another, short of having several phone companies
|> run their wires to each neighborhood and giving each phone user a
|> choice of which line to connect to. And even then, what if you
|> subscribe to Phone Company A while your best friend subscribes to
|> Phone Company B?
|>
|> 	Some kinds of monopoly are difficult to avoid, it must be
|> conceded.

I so concede--but I also point out that these sorts of problems have been
solved by at least 11 U.S. cities, among them Lubbock Texas, which have
competing public utilities.  If you want to change your supplier of 
electricity, just make two phone calls and its done.
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: 08 Jan 93 16:43 PST
Subject: How USA-Today Lies (3)
Nf-ID: #N:9301090040.AA18795@tba.msi.corne:-1086909503:000:2305
Nf-From: math.cornell.edu!harelb    Jan  8 16:43:00 1993


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: How USA-Today Lies (3)


 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
    Most of the $129 million the United States sent in relief aid 
    after the disaster was awarded as loans to home and business 
    owners [not the] majority who were squaters, renters, or refugees.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

****************************************************************** 
****** Oxfam America "Focus on: El Salvador" (1990 or 1991) ****** 
****************************************************************** 

" A tiny country the size of Massachusetts, El Salvador has five 
million people but few resourdes to support them. A wealthy elite 
controls the military, governemnt, land, and industry. Just six 
families own as much farmleand as 300,000 peasants, much of it the 
country's best land. While the elite lives luxuriously, the majority 
of the people are impoverished: One in four children is malnourished, 
and *half* the population has no access to safe drinking water or 
toilets. With a standard of living that has actually *declined* since 
the early 1980s, most poeple do not have land to farm, and 
underemployhment and unemploeyment hover near 50 percent. 

[My emphasis, on these unmentioned part about the "Cold War Victory" 
--HB] 

			     *** *** *** 

Much aid to El Salvador is also diverted, and programs are notorious 
for waste and corruption, including the resale of U.S. government 
relief food on the black market by Salvadoran officials. The 
devastating 1986 earthquake left about one-fifth of the capital of San 
Salvador without shelter. 

[On Washington's "humanitarian priorities":] 

Most of the $129 million the United States sent in relief aid after 
the disaster was awarded as LOANS TO HOME AND BUSINESS OWNERS. But the 
majority of people left home-less were squatters, refugees, and 
renters, who were ineligible for these loans."[my emphasis --HB] 

"According to a 1987 report by the Institute for Food and Development 
Policy, AID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] admits 
that ...that goal of the agrarian reform was to `pacify rather than 
empower' the rural poor" 


Oxfam America 115 Broadway, Boston, MA 02116 
617 482 1211
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:35:31 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1iuiriINNjie@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

|In article <1993Jan11.174250.5872@hellgate.utah.edu>  
|thomson%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson) writes:
|> However, in the case of a taxi business, I think you will find that
|> most governments regulat the taxi business so comprehensively that
|> competing with the existing suppliers is nearly impossible.  This  
|is
|> an example of how regulation limits competition.

|But some degree of regulation is needed here.  First off, the
|government must make sure that you don't have criminals running
|a taxi organization and mugging every third customer.

This is ludicrous.  If you knew that a given company was in the
habit of mugging it's customers, would you use that comapny.
I wouldn't.

|Second,
|the government provides some resources: most cities have taxi
|stand areas, where cabs can park but where cars cannot. For
|both these reasons, the government has to exercise some kind of
|control over cabs.

Another ludicrous argument.  Because the city provides a subsidy to
some taxi companies, the city has the right to control all taxi
companies.  Get rid of the taxi stands.  If some company like a hotel
or an airport wants to provide stands as a service to their customers,
then let them.  The city has no business providing such a service.

-- 
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: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Summary: Wrong!  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:43:43 GMT

In article <markp.726768433@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)                         writes...
>>In article <C0nIDp.oy@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>>>With the collapse of Reaganite ecconomics [...] 
>>>The Free-Market ideology of Regan/Bush plunged the country into an
>>>ecconomic failure unparalleled since the last time deregulation was tried in the
>>>twenties. On this basis the New-Right Libs need a hefty dose of new thinking.
>>>
>Reagan came close enough to free-market policies to produce an unprecedented
>economic boom that DID "lift all boats."

Never mind that there was more poverty in 1989 than in 1980. Also, never mind
that he morgaged all of our future's.

>>>Phill Hallam-Baker
> 
>Mark Pundurs

-garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:25:01 GMT

Phill Hallam-Baker (hallam@zeus02.desy.de) wrote:
: Nope, I'm sure that If Edison hadn't invented the telephone then Bell would have
: done it.
: 

Well, I'm sure if the Germans didn't bomb Pearl Harbor that the Japanese
would have.

For humor impaired: :)

: |>Henry Ford took risks, made bold plans. Our present corporations are
: |>failing to do just that.
: 
: And got backed by Edison without which he never would have made it. Ford was one
: of Edison's technicians and owed a great deal to Edison's help getting him
: started. The free market was not ready to back such a revolutionary idea as
: building cars on a chasis using the production line principle for mass
: production.
: 

News Flash: Edison and Ford ARE free market.

: --
: 
: Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics