HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?  (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:36:16 GMT

In article <1jt6a7INNk8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
}
}In a previous article, sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) says:
}
}>Would someone please post some of the objections to the pledge?  I didn't 
}>really have a problem with it, and I'm curious as to why anyone would object 
}>(note that I wouldn't have signed the pledge without that key word 
}>"initiation"...is it that there are some versions of the pledge without that?).
}>
}>--
}>Steve Conley                       "Jupiter:  America's dairy land!" --MST3K
}>sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu    | Disclaimer:  OSU is too damn big to
}>Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian! |              have any opinions at all.
}>
}1.)  It doesn't protect us from anything, as an unscrupulous person who 
}wishes to co-opt the party can simply lie.

So we should make it so that such scum don't even have to lie?  Besides, it
reduces misunderstanding to have libertarianism defined.  Someone who doesn't
oppose coercion isn't a libertarian.  There's no reason why we should allow
such people to be LP members.

}2.)  It scares away some people because of its resemblance to a loyalty
}oath.  

This resemblance is only superficial.  People wouldn't be scared away from it
if people who wanted non-libertarians to be members didn't keep telling
people it had this resemblance.

}3.)  There would be a few people who could not sign it because their religion
}does not permit oaths.

And many of those monetary supporters of the LP who haven't signed up have
done so on exactly this ground.

}4.)  If taken literally (as it often is) it cannot be signed in good 
}conscience by minarchists, since *any* gov't involves at least the 
}possibility of the initiation of the use of force...for one thing, you have
}to oppose all taxation, for any reason, in order to be true to the oath...
}yet a person could be willing to accept limited taxation as a necessary
}evil, still accept *every* other plank in the platform, and not be
}able to sign the pledge.

Merely because people are inperfectly faithful to a principle is no reason
to abandon it.

}5.)  It may be illegal, in some states, once we have gained recognized
}status as a political party.

This is a new one on me!  Where?


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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?  (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 08:13:49 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, brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) says:

>In article <1jt6a7INNk8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) says:
>>
>>>Would someone please post some of the objections to the pledge?  I didn't 
>>>really have a problem with it, and I'm curious as to why anyone would object 
>>>(note that I wouldn't have signed the pledge without that key word 
>>>"initiation"...is it that there are some versions of the pledge without that?).
>>[...]
>>3.)  There would be a few people who could not sign it because their religion
>>does not permit oaths.
>
>The pledge that I signed did not say "I swear" -- it said "I hereby certify."
>This sounds more like a contract than an oath.  I know of no religion that
>forbids signing contracts.
>
There are some Jehovah's Witnesses and some Quakers (to name only two groups)
who will not swear, affirm, certify, etc.  Their position is that the 
difference is one of semantics, not of substance, and their interpretation
of their religion does allow *any* sort of affirmation, as it is idolatrous.

Please note that *I* do not hold this opinion, so don't flame me on that
account.  I merely observe that there are people who *do*, and we would be
foolish to exclude such a person solely because their religion (their
adherence to principle, no less!) does not permit them to sign an oath.
>
>-- 
>Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu, dbrown@ai.uga.edu)
>
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
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: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage.
Date: 28 Jan 1993 23:36:24 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: vongole.mit.edu

In article <1k7691INN5cn@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>Government NEVER forced anyone to be a slaveowner.
>Slave owners denied slaves their rights.
>Owners could and did free their slaves if they wanted to.
>The US government never created a slave out of anybody.
>The US government never took a pro-slavery position stronger than "if they
>are property, laws concerning property apply."
>If an owner freed a slave, he was a citizen and nobody could re-enslave him
>or his descendants.

you just don't get it, do you.
the government's responsibility is to protect rights. in not doing so,
it condoned slavery. it didn't have to snap the whip itself.
is that so bloody difficult for you to understand?

if so, how about these:
isn't it the role of the government to *stop* those who deny others their
rights? what kind of government allows one man to define another as
"property"?

>Very simply, the government was hands-off on the issue of slavery.  Any
>government involvement was limited to issues of property.  Any denial of
>rights was done by capitalist owners: the US simply didn't affirm the rights.

this really *is* idiotic. the government doesn't have the right to
*be* hands-off. it is their *responsibility* to make sure that no-one
violates the rights of others. and allowing one to be defined as property
*is* denial of rights.

based on your logic, if some small town somewhere decided to
violate the rights of some minority group, the government could
arbitrarily decide to be "hands off" on the issue, and based on that
decision, you would blame the offenders exclusively. the list
of counter-examples is endless.

you really believe this crap?

incredible.

-=-
charles
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:24:57 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <C166pJ.3Mn@rice.edu> ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:
>In my view, children owe their parents nothing legally (though perhaps
>morally they do) because they did not agree to part of the 'bargain'
>of being born.  On the hand, parents do have a positive obligation
>toward their children to see to their basic necessities.  The problem
>is that people have children without being able to do that.  In this
>unique instance almost any person can create liability out of 'thin air'
>without first demonstrating some backing collateral.  The question
>then becomes, who suffers?  The choices are:
>1) The children because of their bad luck.
>2) The parents who might conceivably be forced to pay or prevented 
>   from having (more) children.
>3) Totally uninvolved people who have their taxes hiked to pay for
>   someone else's children.
>None of these are pleasant alternatives.  Libertarians see injustice
>in (3) that others don't seem to.

I more or less agree with this analysis.  However, there is still more to it.
If the children suffer, and grow up to be adults who cannot compete within
the preferred system, they compete out of the system, i.e. they commit crimes.

Where I think the libertarians are wrong, is that they are not pragmatic enough
to recognize that while there is injustice to them in (3), there is also
injustice to them through (1) when the children grow up and commit crimes.
Frankly, I'd rather pay more taxes to create fellow citizens than to allow
a resentful underclass to grow up looking for opportunities to rip me off.
A class that isn't exploiting opportunities to expand itself at the expense
of other classes is likely to shrink until it is impotent.

>If mrh is appalled at the libertarian
>option, which is some combination of (1) and (2), how far is he
>willing to push (3)?  Should I pay for my neighbor's kids on the
>block?  in the city?  in the country?  in the world?  Should we rush
>in, feed, cloth, & school everyone in Somalia under the age of 16?
>I don't think so.  

The answer is very simple.  You should pay as part of the community which has
undertaken to solve the problem within itself.  At the moment, that is
national, state, and local.  Not worldwide yet.

Mike Huben

"Nothing is more humbling than to look with a strong magnifying glass
at an insect so tiny that the naked eye sees only the barest speck
and to discover that nevertheless it is sculpted and articulated and
striped with the same care and imagination as a zebra.  Apparently it
does not occur to nature whether or not a creature is within our range
of vision, and the suspicion arises that even the zebra was not designed
for our benefit." -- Rudolf Arnheim
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Party line
Date: 23 Jan 93 16:28:06
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
	<1993Jan23.124956.12965@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu's message of Sat, 23 Jan 93 12:49:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.124956.12965@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.230029.11734@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>>I suspect this situation is very common.  I'd be deciding "because it produces
>>results that are good, I support the NCP", rather than "because I support the
>>NCP, I automatically consider anything resulting from it to be good".  Even if
>>I support everything libertarian now, there might be some situation I haven't
>>yet thought of where I might conclude the NCP flunks.  What then?

I agree completely.  I value individual freedom, economic prosperity,
and technological progress.  I support both civil libertarianism and
the free enterprise system because they are effective at maximizing
these values.  On the other hand, I don't find either natural rights
or Objectivist arguments for the NCP very convincing.

For example: I believe that our current public education system is a
disaster and that the private sector could do a much better job of
educating the nation's children.  On the other hand, I don't believe
that government subsidies allowing poor children to pay for an
education (e.g. vouchers) are inherently immoral.  I'm willing to
consider arguments that any government subsidies might distort the
market and cause additional problems -- but these are pragmatic
concerns, not moralistic ones.

>I agree with you. (I'm an LP member, but I don't take pledges
>seriously unless they are legally binding or between me and
>someone I trust). More evidence in favor of scrapping the pledge
>as a requirement for LP membership!

I agree -- although I think the real problem is not so much the oath
itself, but the mentality behind the oath.  The voters aren't
interested in abstract philosophical principles, they're interested in
results.  If the LP can convince the public that it offers solutions,
it may start to influence policy and win elections -- otherwise it
will remain as irrelevant as the CPUSA...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:53:23 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <C17qG3.I86@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:
>
>>But real life *is* a series of prisoner's dilemmas. That changes the
>>payoff matrix significantly and that's what makes it in an individual's
>>best interest to cooperate rather than defect. Defecting will pay off
>>more in the short run, but will make it less likely that others will
>>cooperate in the long run. It's not necessary to have government intervention
>>to make people cooperate... they will do it themselves, knowing that
>>in the long run it is in their best interests.
>
>Have you ever played Diplomacy?  People are willing to betray others
>if they think the payoff is enough; and in a large society, it is
>possible to move far enough away that retribution is unlikely.  In
>other words, the series of prisoner's dilemmas can be terminated
>unilaterally, so cooperative behaviour cannot always be depended on.

Exactly.  I just bought THE book on this subject yesterday:

"The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod.  Highly recommended.

Mike Huben

"Historians will have to face the fact that natural selection determined the
evolution of cultures in the same manner as it did that of species."
Konrad Lorenz in "On Agression" 1966.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: grant@bluemoon.use.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: New idea for school vouchers
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 17:59:05 GMT

David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>>The old cost was 90K*6K =540M.
>>The new cost is 60K*6K + 40K*4K=360+160= 520M.

 I like this new math... 90,000 - 60,000 = 40,000...  (or is that
90,000 - 40,000 = 60,000?)  Can I use this on my tax return this
year?  ;}

>>So, there is a savings using the voucher plan - or alternatively,
>>more money to apply to the public schools.

 Hopefully to the mathematics programs...

-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.use.com)   /

        Good leaders being scarce, following yourself is allowed.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage.
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:04:55 GMT

In article <C12EqE.KI6@encore.com> rcollins@1.com writes:
}Liberals, in their unbounded arrogance think they know more "what
}extensive needs must be met to compete well in society" than the
}individuals trying to compete.
}
}Roger Collins

Roger, how dare you contribute to the desecration of the once-noble term
"liberal" by applying it to such as Huben?  What has he done to deserve it?

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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: The big difference
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:43:36 GMT

In article <19930127135450ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
>In article <1k6li0INN57m@armory.centerline.com>, on 27 Jan 1993 18:50:40 GMT,
>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>Do you deny that societies have created all rights?  If so, I'd like to know
>>how you know that, and how those other rights have come about.

"Societies" may not be exactly the right word (and is one sure to send
some libertarians into a tizzy). However it is undeniable that
rights are created, let's say by interaction between humans.
Humans do not have rights by virtue of their being humans except
to the extent other humans have decided to give them rights or
they have successfully defended claimed rights with force.
Anyone who claims that humans have inalienable or natural rights
is just blowing hot air.

>Of course I deny that societies create rights! Would you claim that the
>Jews sent to the death camps in Nazi Germany had no right to live
>because the society approved of their extermination, or would you say
>that their right to live had been violated in those societies?
>
>Which is it?

Both. Their moral rights were violated, according to you, me and
most other living people. However, that their moral rights were
violated is the opinion of you, me, and most of humanity, not an
absolute. It is undeniable that Jews sent to death camps in
Naziland (plenty of camps outside Germany I believe) in fact had
no right to live. The only proof of this that needs to be given
is that several million were killed. Unfortunately no amount of
moralising by you or I can change the rights that people
actually have. 
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "Like I trust yr friends"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Originator: ervan@athene.cs.rice.edu
Reply-To: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:35:47 GMT


grant@bluemoon.use.com (Grant DeLorean) writes:
> 
> ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:
> 
> >I don't mean to suggest that a book is an eyesore or that it
> >uses valuable resources (like yard space which I paid dearly
> >for), but the point is that the only approach that makes sense
> >to me is one where 'dumped' articles become the property of the person
> >they are dumped on.  If this were not so, then the person who
> >is dumped on has some positive obligation that he did not agree
> >to accept.  I cannot see any other logical alternative.  If
> >the book dropped on my yard is not mine, what am I obligated to
> >do?  Leave it on my yard?  Store it for the day the owner
> >returns?  Put an ad in the paper?
> 
> >You mentioned difficult counter-examples.  Give me some of those
> >examples and I'll try to meet them one at a time.
> 
>  I'm not the person who mentioned them, but how about this: You wake up
> and find a few toxic waste containers (some of which aren't properly
> sealed...) on your lawn. Are they now yours, along with the burden
> to dispose of them safely? Or does the dumper still own the containers
> and the responsibility?

The dumper loses rights but not responsbilities.  I see no 
contradiction in that.  If someone harms me via pollution, they are 
responsible for the damages.  If someone litters on me to such an 
extent that it costs me real effort (or money) to clean it up, they 
owe me compensation.  That has no impact on my assuming ownership of
what is dumped.  Someone else cannot force me to assume either cost
(pollution) or obligation (not owning what is dumped) without my 
consent.


> 
> >Returning to the main issue, radio waves, if one accepts the notion
> >that things left on my property are mine, the only question is are
> >radio waves actually left there?  One poster made the point that
> >radio waves are something else, not part of your property, like
> >air space far above, or liquids far beneath (though this is fuzzy).
> >This is the only really good objection that I have heard.  
> 
>  The radio waves pass through, they don't stay. If they are intended
> for someone else you can't stop them (IE jamming equipment) but while
> on your property you can listen in as this doesn't stop the signal from
> continuing.
> 
I agree.




Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:46:13 GMT

In article <90460@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Jan16.051522.12695@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>
>|	Why, do you have the right to read this book, marked "do not
>|read"?  the reason I ask, is to see where you stand on the issue of
>|intellectual property, before a begin debating; why I don't think you have
>|the right to read it, so try and be somewhat philosophical.  Remember the
>|manuscript was unpublished, just found.
>
>If someone places a manuscript in a public place with a note on it, "Do
>not read", they are trying to place on me a contract that I did not
>agree to.
>Should I read it, no.  But that is a moral issue not a legal one.
>Legally there is nothing to stop me from reading it.
>In addition, if the book has not been copyrighted, then there is no legal
>reason why I could not make copies of the book and sell them.
>-- 
>Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
>It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
>Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

	Sorry for the delay in the response, but I've been real busy.
anyway, were talking about the moral issue, not the legal one.  Also, were
assuming that we do have a copyright.

--JMB


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 09:41:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.001100.6277@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
}
}>3) getting rid of the membership pledge.
}[...]
}>I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that the membership pledge costs
}>us many supporters.
}
}You haven't been reading this newsgroup then. I've seen
}postings from several people saying they are libertarians but
}not LP members who would reconsider if the LP scrapped the
}pledge and took a more solutions-oriented stance.

I should have qualified evidence by saying that what I meant was scientific,
as opposed to anecdotal, evidence.  I've never seen any scientific evidence
to support the claim that there's lots of libertarians who would join if
it weren't for the pledge.

The anti-pledge types seem to me to want to go after non-libertarians
to become members, that's all.  Yet, many who give money to the LP haven't
signed the membership pledge - and I have seen evidence for this.

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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire