HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 21:01:01 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <BZS.93Jan6053516@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>>Er, perhaps not germane to the current discussion, but this brings to mind
>>something Dick Boddie once wrote.  To paraphrase:
>>   Equality in the garden would mean chopping the tops off of the
>>   healthiest, fastest growing plants; geological equality would
>>   mean leveling mountain ranges.
>
>Gack, what a fascist mentality! And I suppose adding a little more
>water and fertilizer to the section of the garden not doing well is
>just anathema...let it wither, deliver god's justice to your carrots!
>
>>He goes on to say he prefers liberty to equality.
>
>How's he doing these days? Probably drooling in a garden somewhere
>cashing govt checks...
>
>The pathetic thing is that those who write things like this don't
>understand what insects they are, if confronted with true power for
>one second on these terms they'd be on their knees begging for
>"equality". What cheap and tawdry hubris...too many Chuck Norris
>movies I guess.

If I ever get on my knees and beg for this kind of "equality", please shoot
me.

>
>-- 
>        -Barry Shein
>
>Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
>Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
Life is a mystery and it's an unsolvable one.  You simply live it through, and,
as you draw your last breath you say "What was that all about?"
                                                          - Marlon Brando
===============================================================================
"The computer industry is journalists in their 20s standing in awe of 
entrepreneurs in their 30s who are hiring salesmen in their 40s and 50s and 
paying them in the 60s and 70s to bring their marketing into the 80s."
                                      - public relations wizard Marty Winston
===============================================================================
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Psephological journals
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:22:34 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <93005.54083.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

|I'm certainly not qualified to make policy; I can only give an opinion.  I am
|of the opinion that (a) abortion sucks; (b) those who seek abortion usually
|have little regard for life; (c) my opinion shouldn't dictate public policy;
|(d) people seeking abortions have no right to pick my pocket for something
|I oppose; and (e) as long as I don't have to pay for it, I have no right to
|prevent the abortion from occurring.  I would love a world in which no abor-
|tions occurred.  Yet I recognize that I have no right to force others to comply
|with *my* personal ideals.

I'm going to have to take issue with you on this one.

You are right in that you cannot force people to behave in the manor that
you approve.
But do you believe that each of us has an obligation to prevent force or
fraud.  After all, most libertarians believe that this obligation is the
only legitimate role for government.

*IF* abortion kills a human, than outlawing abortion is no less legitimate
a governmental role, than is outlawing murder.

Another example.

How would you feel if I were to say,
While I am personally opposed to wife beating, I do not believe it falls
within the power of government to outlaw such things.  I have no right
to impose my personal ideals on others.

Most people would be outraged by such a stand.
This is how I feel when I hear people say things like what you said above.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:03:19 GMT

In article <BZS.93Jan8175219@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>Do you really believe this tripe you are spouting? Let me get this
>straight, if your bank down the corner goes belly up, not every bank,
>yours, then you and the other say 1500 depositors are better off
>replacing your own money than spreading that rare event around?

Rare?!  You haven't heard the rumblings?  The upcoming bank crisis is going
to make the S&L crises look like a picnic.

>A minute ago you were talking about the wonders of insurance. Now you
>seem to believe insurance doesn't work. Which is it? What does FDIC
>stand for? How is it operated? Is it different than any insurance,
>other than the fact that the US Govt happens to own it? Have you ever
>spent more than 10 seconds thinking about these issues before parading
>them in public? Do you feel silly right now? You certainly should.

For the zillionth time, in the zillionth group, for the 2nd or 3rd year
now: The FDIC insures S&Ls with the same rate structure no matter how
risky they behave.  YES it is different from any other insurance.  Corruption,
nepotism, stupidity, wild speculation on questionable investments, none
of it mattered - particularly if the S&L exec had friends in the government.
They still got to put out the nice "FDIC insured" sticker, still got to pay
the same insurance rates as the stodgy, conservative S&L down the street,
right up until the bank went dead broke and its liabilities became the
taxpayer's liabilities.

Now, what if the government didn't insist on having the monopoly in S&L
insurance?  What if one year, your bank is insured by the FDIC, and the
next you notice it's insured by, say, Mutual of Omaha?  Not a big deal,
right?  But the next year, you see they're insured by the "Really Big 
Bank Insurance Company, a subsidary of Home and Auto Insurance Company",
while you notice that the interest they're paying you has gone up?  Hmm..
this feels a little risky, doesn't it?  What if, in the next year, you notice
that your interest has gone up again, but the bank no longer has any
insurance at all?

I'll tell you what if: you'd know that this is the place for speculative
investment, but NOT your life savings.  If you *didn't* figure that out, then
yes, it's harsh, but I must agree: you deserve to loose, and I shouldn't
have to cover your losses.

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Date: 10 Jan 93 03:59:36 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <9JAN199321025777@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.232301.21934@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes...
>>	Yes a radio reciever is sort of a decryption device, however when
>>one braodcasts a radio signal the intent is for the people at alarge to
>>listen to it; you have the owners consent.  When one broadcasts a encrpted
>>signal the intent is the opposite.  How doesn't it follow that the law
>>should be different?
>> 
>>--JMB
>> 
>> 
>Here we come to the critical issue:  the law.    The ethical questions are 
>quite complex,  but as far as law goes it seems pretty clear to me.
>Lets say you make it illegal to intercept and decode encrypted signals.
>I'll assume you agree with me that it's a bad idea to have laws on the books
>that are generally not enforced.  How the hell do you plan on enforcing this 
>law?  By outlawing equipment that might be used to decrypt signals?  By
>making anyone who owns such equipment register it and breaking down their 
>doors on anonymous tips to see if they're using it illegally? By forbidding 
>anyone from pointing out that a piece of eqipment could possibly be used for
>decryption?  There's no way to enforce a law like this withiut trampling all
>over people's liberties!
>
>Mr. Grinch after a few
>
>

	Ok, enforcement is a very different matter.  On the whole I agree
its almost impossible to enforce this law.  However, we have practicality
on our side.  A simple encryption system can be run on any PC in seconds. 
A decryptions sytem takes hours on a supercomputer.  Its going to be hard
for that to go unnoticed.  But on the whole, you could do any of the
following quite easily:

1)  Bust people who sell blue boxes, etc...
2)  Ban the advertisement for such devices.
3)  Inform people that ownership is a crime.  If they caught they'll be sorry.

	Basically make it harder.  That's all.  

--JMB
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3012 comp.org.eff.talk:8285 alt.amateur-comp:464 soc.culture.usa:9443 alt.activism:20019
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 4 Jan 1993 21:47:16 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1ia720INNm2j@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ag167@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Don Pavlish) writes:
>>a wonderful summing up!  libertarianism as the ideology of the
>>frustrated children of the elite.  [...DRIBBLE DELETED...] they aren't
>>quite prepared to admit that in a libertarian society there'd be
>>no school loans, scholarships, etc. for people like them and so
>>they'd be preaching the religion of the mighty and asocial
>>individual while sweeping up the shit in the rich folks' back yard.
>
>Actually, as a Libertarian I am quite prepared to admit that a
>Libertarian government would -not- offer loans, scholarships, etc.
>for college tuition. However, a Libertarian government wouldn't be
>stealing and wasting such a huge chunk of my family's income, rendering
>government aid necessary in the first place. Cause and effect, see?

No, we don't see.  Because we can no more see libertarian governments than
we can see heaven.  You sound just like a communist promising the withering
away of the state, or a Christian promising heavenly rule, or a cargo-cultist
propitiating the great silver birds.

Considering that room, board, and tuition at most top-notch universities costs
close to the median family income in the US, its pretty obvious that
Libertarianism would tie quality of education to family wealth as closely as
it is tied in most third world nations (and used to be in most modern industrial
nations.)

If your family could have afforded to send you to an unsubsidized, top-notch
college on the perhaps 20 to 30 percent of their income that is paid in taxes
(never mind that some of that money would be needed to buy services that you
currently receive from the government), then you clearly place yourself into
the "frustrated children of the elite" class so clearly described.

My parents were impoverished immigrants.  They, my sisters, and I could
never have afforded our educations which propelled us into the middle class
without substantial government loans and subsidies.  I defy you to point to
a nation that creates and perpetuates a large middle class without such
subsidies.

Mike Huben

"Utopias now appear much more realizable than one used to think.  We are now
faced with a different new worry: How to prevent their realization."
						Nicolas Berdiaeff
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:45:27 GMT

In article <1ifet6INN3a4@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.151520.20299@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>>In article <1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>>No, we don't see.  Because we can no more see libertarian governments than
>>>we can see heaven.  You sound just like a communist promising the withering
>>>away of the state, or a Christian promising heavenly rule, or a cargo-cultist
>>>propitiating the great silver birds.
>>
>>Or a demopublican promising deficit reductions?
>
>As a percentage of GNP, there have been major deficit reductions during the
>Eisenhower and Carter administrations.
>
>The USA has always had a national debt (excepting 1835-6).  The last balanced
>budget passed was submitted by Lyndon Johnson-- that big-spending, Great
>Society liberal.  :-)
>

To be more blatantly obvious, my point was that ridiculous claims
are frequently made by politicians of the two major parties. Deficit
reduction (while at the same time talking about numerous expensive
national programs and low/no tax increases) is an *example* of such 
a claim from the recent election.  Claiming that Libertarians, on average,
are more ridiculous/gullible than major party members is in itself 
ridiculous.

My point was that your broadly brushed claim that 
Libertarians are somehow in Lala land alone, is just plain ridiculous
in light of the political absurdities perpetrated upon us by the 
Republocrats (since having the order the other way about
apparently keyed you off :-) on an almost daily basis.

I don't recall ever stating (indeed how could I in a brief
one-liner?) that the deficit was a good or bad thing or that
it hadn't existed previously (although the *amount* has
varied widely over the course of time). I was attempting to point out
that Demopublicans make many pie in the sky claims as a matter
of course (we are discussing *politics* after all :).  I don't 
seriously expect to see anything major done about the deficit by the 
major parties in the near future.  We'll find out if I'm right or 
wrong over the course of the next decade.

Many people seem to foster the notion that if we ever elected a few 
Libertarian members to Congress that the Libertarian ideals would be 
enacted part an parcel the same day. The reality is that there would 
be compromise just as there is right now. Unfortunately, the two 
party system currently seems to be fostering the idea that 
government *control* is always a good thing (even if they 
sometimes disagree about the goals and means). 
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: New idea for school vouchers
Date: 13 Jan 1993 01:15:53 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1iuu15INN5o7@life.ai.mit.edu>, olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen) writes:

> I propose a simple remedy: let the public schools assign larger vouchers
> to 'difficult' students, and even larger ones to special-needs students.
> The voucher amounts might look something like this:
> 
>         regular students: $3500
>       difficult students: $3500-$7000
>   special-needs students: $7000+

> The beauty of this scheme is that it makes every student desirable to
> a school.  Regular students would be desirable because they are easy
> to teach.  Difficult and special-needs students would be desirable
> because they would come with large vouchers.

> Under this scheme everyone wins, except those with a vested interest
> in maintaining the public-school monopoly.  Comments, anyone?

The horror of this scheme is 75% of the school-age population going
through life labeled "difficult" or "special-needs" as the parents 
and/or schools waddle up to the trough for those big-money vouchers.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: S&L
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:07:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.162426.29757@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>	I don't want to jump into the middle of this debate, Patrick seems
>to be doing fine,

Thanks!

>but.... The FDIC did NOT insure S&L's.

Yea, I tend to gloss over such details, and go right to the concepts, which
remain the same.  The gov insulated the big money guys from the consequences
of their actions, resulting in a de facto (at least) conspiracy between 
gov and the privileged.  The usual result of an overly powerful government.

>[many enlightening details..]
>	Just wanted to correct some false history.

Thanks.

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:57:55 GMT

In article <93006.30346.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>
>  What of the man who
>is forced to pay 18 years of child support for a child he didn't ever want?
>Can the man defend himself against the judge who forces him to pay against his
>will?
>
I would assume that a man would not be forced to pay support under libertarian
philosophy.  Assuming that a suitable guardian could be found to accept
responsibility of the child such as an adoptive parent, the man could 
argue that the woman wants custody and thus should bear sole responsibility
for support.  Or he could get custody if the woman was unwilling to accept
such responsibility.  He has found ways of meeting his responsibility by
accepting custody or finding adoptive parents, why should he be forced
to pay?

Joe Moore
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3060 comp.org.eff.talk:8360 alt.amateur-comp:497 soc.culture.usa:9502 alt.activism:20106
From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:00:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <CKD.93Jan5122519@loiosh.eff.org>, ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
|> 
|> As for America in the 50s, the G.I. Bill should also, IMHO, be considered a
|> substantial government subsidy...

Ah yes, the GI Bill.  I tried to go to college under the GI Bill in 1973.
You would be amazed hard it is to stretch $250 a month.
Some subsidy.  I ended out working in a factory and eventually back in the
Army.  I still don't have a degree, but I don't let that slow me down.

Now I have to start worrying about trying to get me daughter into college.
Maybe someday I will get a degree, but I don't expect the government to pay
pay for it.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |               HARD HAT AREA
     bill@cs.uofs.edu         | New .signature being constructed on this site
                              |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: rv@cs.brown.edu (rodrigo vanegas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: child labor and minimum wage.
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:25:47
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Brown University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab9a.cs.brown.edu

What are the libertarian positions with regards to these two issues?
If the LP is laissez faire about both or either of them, then how
would the resulting labor situation differ from the horror stories of
the late 1800s?


rodrigo vanegas
rv@cs.brown.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:24:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.195714.29883@ils.nwu.edu> Cliff Chaput <chaput@ils.nwu.edu> writes:
>You're forgetting something, though: supply and demand.  If taxes were
>eliminated, and the average net income rose accordingly, demand for all
>items would also rise, since they are now more affordable.  As the demand
>rises for a product, so will its price.

Yea, we see that now with computers, don't we?  There once was a time when a
slow IBM PC with 256K RAM and two floppies cost $3,000.  Now that demand is
so high, the same machine is selling for $250,000.

Not.

*You're* forgetting something: an expanding economy.  Also, the efficiency
inherent in people paying for things they value, instead of forcing them
to pay more for what they absolutely must have.

I just don't understand people arguing *against* the idea that Americans
should be free to make the best bargains possible.

>Instead of these things being distributed to the masses, they will go to the
>highest bidder, and will therefore be designed to benefit those who can pay
>for it.  The end result: a highly polarized society consisting of the
>privileged very rich and the oppressed very poor.  (History will back me up
on this, I believe.)

I don't believe.  Convince me.

From 1750 to the early 1900s, the U.S. experienced unprecedented economic
boom.  It absorbed millions of imigrants, and had the 'mechanism', if you
will, to give them a better life than they had at home, and give their
kids a better life than most any other people on the planet.  During this
time, there was minimal government intervention in markets, minimal 
government intervention into private life, no federal reserve, no drug
prohibition, no charity beyond private charity, no income tax, no minimum
wage, no government schools, etc etc etc.  The literacy rate was high,
the poverty rate (*real* poverty, like homelessness and starvation) was
low, there was little crime, there were recessions but no depressions.

The closest thing ever to a libertarian state, and it was an unprecedented
success.  Not perfect, but so amizingly good that people all over the world
slaved there lives away in the hope of coming here one day. 

Now that government accounts for about 50% of GNP; taxes most people up to
and beyond 50%; provides "charity" and housing and a "minimim wage" for the
poor; controls the distribution of just about everything in one way or 
another; "protects" us from drugs and other such "evils"; and generally
makes sure that good things are "distributed to the masses" instead of
"go to the highest bidder"; we have a permanent underclass, a shrinking
middle class, and it's all generally thought to be under the control
of the "privileged very rich".
 
"The end result: a highly polarized society consisting of the privileged very
rich and the oppressed very poor.  (History will back me up on this, I
believe.)"

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism