HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:27:27 GMT

tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>In article 711829845@cancun, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>>If you are afraid of state power why then would you allow the state to
>>>have monopoly control over force at all? 
>>
>>It doesn't.  There's a little matter of private gun ownership.

>What does gun ownership have to do anything?  Regardless of the weapon
>you cannot use force against another unless it's self defense. You must
>be having some Rambo fantasy if you think a gun puts you on equal footing
>with the massive powers of the state. And if it does, why have laws against
>the use of force at all?

No, a gun doesn't put me on equal footing with the massive powers of
_your_ state.  Transplanting the current bloated government into a
libertarian society just doesn't work.  In that case, we'd indeed have
severe lack of freedom - sort of like now.
-- 
The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter.
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Nonination for LP Mascot
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:40:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.111443.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox) writes:

>Hows about the axolotl?
>Most people have never heard of it, and those who have are not exactly
>sure what it is ;-)

Hmmm, I'm not sure, but this may be an insult.

For those who don't know, an axolotl is a salamander that never sheds its
gills -- in other words, it never grows up.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

"Athens built the Acropolis.  Corinth was a commercial city, interested in
purely materialistic things.  Today we admire Athens, visit it, preserve the
old temples, yet we hardly ever set foot in Corinth."

			- Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Laureate in chemistry
From: stu5s33@bnr.ca Robert Nychka
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Summary: reply
Keywords: discrimination
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:40:57 GMT
Reply-To: stu5s33@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd

> I am not saying "bad people", that is your term.  I know a lot of people who
> have been gay bashed, and a lot of women who have been raped.  All of them
> have been attacked by people in this group.  If I see a carload of white
> (or black or latino) males driving towards me on the street, I get the fuck
> out of the way.  They are the people who have tried to run me down, they 
> are the people who have put my friends in the hospital, they are the people
> who have raped my friends.  They are not all bad, not in any sense, but
> as a group, they are the ones who I am afraid of.

So tell me, what is the difference between your discrimation of a group of people (whom you identify by sight) than that of someone else who discriminates against you (or any other minority) by your looks ?

I can use the same explanation by using YOUR quotation with a couple of edits :

*denotes edit*

> I know a lot of *White Het Males* who
> have been bashed.  All of them
> have been attacked by *black* people.  If I see a carload of *black*
> males driving towards me on the street, I get the fuck
> out of the way.  They are the people who have tried to run me down, they 
> are the people who have put my friends in the hospital, they are the people
> who have raped my friends.  They are not all bad, not in any sense, but
> as a group, they are the ones who I am afraid of.

You are in a sense accepting the discrimination that you are screeming so loud about.  Just as you hide from all white males that you "think" are dangerous, some white males might "hide" from you because they think YOU are different.

Are you trying to say that it OK to discriminate ONLY those people who YOU think are dangerous, but if someone DARES discriminates against you it is a total injustice ?

The great thing about freedom of association (which MY country, Canada, apparently does NOT have) is that you CAN keep your distance from people that make you uneasy.  It is much more practical (and more democratic) to leave this kind of decison up to INDIVIDUALS and not the present group of people in power.  Ie, pass a law.  That way, you can avoid the people that make YOU uncomfortable, and people that you make uncomfortable can avoid you.  Violence is an issue that should be dealt with in its own contex







t,  it is against the law for an individual to assault another.  Once the intial precedent is set passing laws that apply to 'groups' of people and not to individuals, how can you prevent a future government from passing a law that represses a group of people instead of protecting them ?

Robert Nychka
-my views are not that of my employer.
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 23 Jul 1992 15:13:45 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 13428@ncar.ucar.edu, gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>kb> When most people start acting in an enlightened manner, I might consider
>kb> voting libertarian.
>
>  I didn't realize people got "enlightened" with a kick to the head.
>

Here's the real question: if a propertyless person is kicked in the head
while in the woods, will any libertarian care :-)
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Turning Japanese
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:23:19 GMT

Kristian Skrinak writes
> There are inherent reasons that putting the rights of the
> individual above those of society promotes a more
> productive system.  It is called the price system. The
> price system is the most effective economic
> communicator ever invented. So then, why is Japan so
> clearly more productive then we? Does their conformist
> society have a mechanism superior to the price system? 

This is a canard. Japanese are not more productive than americans, nor is  
anyone else. What worries some people is that japanese productivity has been  
_growing_ faster than american productivity which does mean that at some point  
in time Japan will actually _be_ more productive, but this is not the same and  
the later has not yet happened.

	Carl Edman
From: johnb@corp.sun.com (John Benninghoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertrians and the environment, info
Date: 29 Jul 1992 15:53:39 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: barfly.corp.sun.com

In article <l7avhqINNjk1@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>You do have goals. You goal is to defend rights. It's only when you think
>you have a monopoly on absolute truth that you talk the way do you.

Did I say I have a monopoly on absolute truth?

>
>And if you are "proud" with it's achievments is not an issue. Only a child or
>a tyrant would be arrogant enough to assume their philosophy should be everyone's
>philosophy.

Only a child (or tyrant?) would confuse a political/economic system with a
philosophy.  :-)

>Oh you don't want a really free market, you want a government that enforces
>how you think government should work. No use of force, fraud, support
>for police, courts, and defense and all that. You delude yourself into thinking
>this is the one truth all must obey.

How do you know what I really want?  And I have no delusions thank you.
Unless you are an anarchist your political position also involves force.

/jb


Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Philandros)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarian definition.
Summary: Libertarian
Keywords: Libertarian
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:49:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Jul30.143952.12547@bnr.ca>, stu5s33@bnr.ca writes...
>Could anybody tell me what the platform of the Libertarian party is, and 
>exactly what it means ?

	That would take some time.  I strongly suggest you call 800-682-1776
and ask for free information.  They can also help suggest a cheap book to
buy to read up on Libertarianism.

> 
>How does it differ from Laissez-faire capitalism ?

	I can't answer that question unless I know what YOU think
laissez-faire capitalism is or what it would lead to.  You will have
to investigate this and think about it for yourself.

> 
>Robert Nychka

Mark Sulkowski
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 23 Jul 1992 17:42:07 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 27812@NOC.Vitalink.COM, rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan) writes:
>In article <l6rri3INN3fg@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM 
>(Todd Hoff) writes:
>
>> There's as much evidence to support our evilness by nature
>> as our goodness. I have always though of prisons as animal pens
>> with cops playing the farmer. You're right. Prisons should go.
>
>"Our evilness by nature..."   Interesting notion.  Let's follow it for
>a bit.
>

To follow we need a leader. Your lack of insight into metaphysics disqualifies
you as one. And as usual difficult points are ignored for less taxing
topics.

>Since people are evil, we need a massive centralized intrusive government
>to keep the evil people in check.   

From one thread you braid a noose...

>And this government is run by?
>Evil people?   Ah, no, we can find a way to ensure that we get some of
>those rare non-evil people to benevolently run this monolithic state, right?
>We can have _democracy_ where the leaders will be chosen by, uh, er, the
>same evil people who are the reason we need an omnipresent interventionist
>State in the first place.
>

..to hang anything human.











Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:28:39 GMT

tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>In article 711836847@cancun, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>>No, a gun doesn't put me on equal footing with the massive powers of
>>_your_ state.  Transplanting the current bloated government into a
>>libertarian society just doesn't work.  In that case, we'd indeed have
>>severe lack of freedom - sort of like now.

>I do sympathise, but it is _our_ state. Unless you plan on moving we
>need to create a reasonable plan to make it better.

What exactly does this have to do with what we were discussing?  It's
a valid point, but the contention was whether being allowed to hold
guns would put all offensive power in the hands of the state or not.


>Because most people will not accept libertarian philosophy there needs to
>be a compromise.

Certainly, that's why we work towards compromise solutions - i.e. we
lower taxes and get illegal taxes removed as being superior to a all
taxes or no taxes immediately stand.  The net discussions are
generally on what an x society would be like, not what is a good
interim path to take.


>I see the compromise as using libertarian philosphy to guide *how* things
>get done, and compromising with the liberal agenda to guide some of *what*
>gets done.

Where's the conflict?  Liberals can do whatever they want to under a
libertarian philosophy.  They can't force others to pay for their plan
du jour, but that comes squarely under the *how* heading.


>I know this probably seems like an eclectic heresy to you,
>but I think it's the most pragmatic, not idealistic, way of making
>things better. I can't see any benifit in taking a "morally" correct
>position if it won't change a damn thing.

The net resembles real life only slightly.
-- 
Easiest way to figure the cost of living: Take your income and add ten percent
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: International wage control
Keywords: wages
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:28:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.212736.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu writes:
>
> {reposted with corrections after apparent news failure - sorry for delay}
>
>In article <1992Jul17.200539.21741@bmerh85.bnr.ca>,
>		robinc@bnr.ca (Robin "Frank" Collins) writes:
>#                       
># 
># I have argued that the same work done by different people should be paid
># the same.
># In a free market, this would be the case. The fact that this doesn't occur
># is proof of the lack of a free market. Very simple.
># 
>
>You know, I started to post what I thought would be a good example refuting
>this statement, but decided to retract it.
>
>Frank may indeed have a point, at least in very restricted circumstances.
>
>In a "free market", with no immigration controls, equal tax laws, etc., and
>with a constant demand for labour (in time and space), one would expect the
>"steady state" to be that workers array themselves around the world so that
>their wages equalize. This also assumes that every location around the world is
>equally agreeable to live in (or at least equally appealing when integrating
>over all workers), and that labour is instantly mobile.
>
>Change any one of these circumstances, and differential wage rates arrize 
>quite natural, and in no way indicate that the market is not free.
>


 Tony, I do believe you've got it.
 
 Now that we've established a theoretical position of agreement, the question
 is whether that "free market" can actually exist (and if not, as I argue,
 what we should think about the market that we actually have...) 
 We may find that the socialist is the one who is demanding free market
 conditions, and the capitalist is arguing for the distorted market by
 which unfair advantages are gained by some by taking advantage of others
 through the distorted market.

 Frank.




Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: stu5s33@bnr.ca (Robert Nychka)
Subject: Libertarian definition.
Summary: Libertarian
Keywords: Libertarian
Reply-To: stu5s33@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:39:52 GMT

Could anybody tell me what the platform of the Libertarian party is, and 
exactly what it means ?

How does it differ from Laissez-faire capitalism ?

Robert Nychka



From: chan@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Chan Benson)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:27:52 GMT
Subject: Re: International wage control (was Re: Libertarian history)
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

> >> Can you define 'fair' in completely objective terms?  If so, please do.
> >> I for one would be absolutely fascinated to see what you think the
> >> word means.  Any subjective definitions are, of course, completely
> >> useless as a basis for designing a society, so I hope you won't waste
> >> our time (and the net's bandwidth) with any such.
> 
> >What an impoverished life you must lead, believing that only the
> >"objective" is real.
> 
> >Can you define "freedom" in completely objective terms? To my mind, 
> >completely objective definitions occur only in artificially restricted
> >domains; such is the nature of language.
> 
> >Just because you are not interested in subjective definitions as a basis
> >for "designing" a society, doesn't mean that others aren't. 
> 
> >                        -- Chan
> 'Objective' is not the appropriate word for what you (or what I think you) 
> mean here. The process of definition must be to some extent objective-or at 
> least intersubjectively grounded, else how do you account for the 
> possibility of any communication whatsoever?  What cannot be eliminated is 
> vagueness in the application of concepts, but the view that that our 
> conceptual scheme itself is intrinsically and unavoidably subjective is 
> easily shown to be self-referentially inconsistent and incoherent.

When I say there is no such thing as a completely objective definition
I do not mean to imply that all definitions are equally valid. What
word would you have liked me to use in place of "objective"?

I get tired of people using the word "subjective" as a pejorative (and
"objective" as a philosophical paragon). That we can't define the word 
"fair" in the same way that we define the word "oxygen" should not prevent 
us from trying. There is no way to weigh the usefulness and validity of 
different concepts without "subjectively" deciding what we think is 
important or valuable. 

			-- Chan

			-- Chan
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Philandros)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Libertarian plans for the roadways and pollution control
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:44:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>[I hadn't expected such a fanciful flight into fantasy, but hey,
> I can roll with it.]

	Please, you are getting rude.

>Okay, so we can sue the owner of the road for damage caused by 
>automobile air pollution.
> 
>What do you think road owners will do to protect themselves? Maybe
>they'll start requiring that your car be tested for the amount
>of pollution it emits. Cars that pollute above a certain level will
>not be allowed on the road. [Gee, that sounds familiar.]

	This could happen.  Sounds okay so far.

>So now we need to get smog stickers for all the possible roads we
>might drive on. Sure some of the road owners might have some kind
>of reciprocity agreements, but what about that one ornery cuss who
>owns the key roadway in the middle of the state? 

	Well, gee, I guess someone will just have to build another
road.  (Yes, I know this is just so fanciful an idea that no one
could believe it...)  Realistically though, why should that "ornery
cuss" own a key road if not for the purpose of making money?  Is he
thinking to himself "How could I loose more money today?"  Perhaps
he has a very good reason for limiting smog on his road -- it might
be next to a major population area.  That's where a new road might
be a good idea.

>I'm sorry but this scheme doesn't sound any more efficacious than
>current state-sponsored emissions testing, and it sounds a lot less
>convenient.

	Investigate the scheme more.  We wouldn't have to pay taxes
to support inefficient emissions testings and other absurd and
wasteful regulations.  Private road owners would have an incentive
to be efficient and handle pollution in a way which is least offensive
to customers.  They would be working to make life more convenient
for us because they have a reason to.  Our government has no such
incentive.  We could hardly expect our lives to be any worse.

>Feel free to offer your own ending to your fairy tale if you don't
>find mine plausible.

	We are living in the fairy tale now.  Let's get into the real
world of privatized road systems.


Mark Sulkowski
Organization: Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:04:43 -0400 
From: "Jon C. Slenk" <js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: How to respond.

How about not having quotes from other messages which are longer than your
response? I believe that makes some common sense.

Anyway, the discussion concerning discrimination is summed up quite simply
by saying, "You can do whatever you wish to, as long as it does not
infringe on other peoples' rights."

Of course, you will have to figure out what rights are.

-Jon.

----------------------------------------------------
Jon Slenk           angst+@cmu.edu     EVERYTHING is
Carnegie Mellon     Pittsburgh PA      Disclaimed
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertrians and the environment, info
Date: 21 Jul 1992 15:57:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 25021@shearson.com, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>No. I didn't call you a socialist. I called the school system
>socialist. Tell me, given that the school system operates with
>government money and government cirriculum selection, what other
>definition of it would fit?
>

As are the courts, police, and defense?

> If the
>current governmental system is scrapped, obviously we will no longer
>be functioning under the current judicial system. Either way, you
>should have been able to guess it.
>

It's not obvious. You have still not put forward a better way of selecting,
employing, and firing judges. In the absence of a proposed superior system 
I must assume you will use the current system or make minor changes which will
preserve the essential spirit of the current system.


Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 23:17:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.145354.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox) writes:
>
>But what, exactly, are the assumptions about human behaviour made by
>free-market economics? I cannot think of any except the trivial one upon
>which all economics is based - that people want to trade.
>
>Conversely, non-free-market economics DOES make at least one assumption about
>human behaviour - it assumes that people will do what they are told.

Come on now. Libertarianism makes the exact same assumption. Poor
people are told they can't take the property of the wealthy even
if they think that wealth was attained unjustly. I don't think
they'll be any more likely to listen to this than people in
command economies listen to the central planners.



-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
      There's something in my library to offend everybody.
        --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:24:24 GMT
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 711829904@cancun, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>Hmmm, and I noticed after I posted it that a liberal did the same thing.
>

It's human nature to try for cheap debating points. Anyway I'm not a liberal
so I won't take offense.

>
>>Is your life really that horrible? You all sound so tortured.
>>[ blah blah ]
>
>Why don't you read what was posted?  A society where people can be
>denied a life.  There's no denying that we live in a society like
>that.  Nothing in there about bad conditions, horrible depressions, or
>anything else.
>-- 

You don't have life? Well if you are not using it can I have it? Should
be marketable. You may not have the life you think is ideal but I doubt that 
is possible anyway. Are you saying you don't have a life because you pay taxes?
Or because you can't deny someone service based on race? Or that you can't
kill anyone you wish? Or that you have to conform to a stupid helmet law?
What is it about your life that you think so little of it?
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:10:44 GMT
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 146@utkux1.utk.edu, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>I don't understand why you are willing to trust the government, which is 
>made up of individuals, to do what you do not trust individuals to do.
>

So you are proposing that I trust groups like the mob, crips, bloods, yakuza (sp?),
hell angels, corporate managers, the fundies--all more than I trust a 
democratically elected government? I have little faith in any form of government, 
but I have NO faith in the inevitable criminal groups that will take power. 
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.politics.marrou