HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@milano.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The word "Libertarian" was invented by Spanish Anarchists
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:11:56 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL

In article <1992Sep15.222852.1730@ready.eng.ready.com> walden@ready.eng.ready.com (Eugene Walden) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.160546.2103@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> adams@bistro.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz) writes:
>Look at Japan's move on the automobile industry. One of the reasons it was
>so successful is because it was a national strategy. 
>
>How do Libertarians address the success of the Japanese economy? 

First of all, the Japanese promoted the auto industry at the expense of other industries.
But more importantly, the succesful promotion of the auto industry is one example of government
intervention.  Many other examples of government intervention are not succesful.  Here's one:
The Japanese government also sponsored and coordinate the effort to make Japan the leader in
6th generation computing (parallel computing, etc...).  Recently, after having spent billions
of dollars on this, the Japanese government announced complete failure and said that they
would give away the results of the research for free.  Another example: The United States
semiconductor consortium.  After millions of dollars spent each year for over five years, the
consortium has basically dissolved without any reasonable benefit from the money spent. 

The underline problem is that, since the government doesn't operate under market conditions, it
is not capable of making decision concerning the relative costs and merits of any particular
undertaking.  This goes beyond just economics though.  Consider the incredibly expensive war
on drugs that our government is undertaking.  Besides the fact that there are moral objections
to the restriction of personal drug use, our we getting our money's worth?  Has the problem
gotten better or worse?
From: wade@nb.rockwell.com (Wade Guthrie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 1992 22:47:33 GMT
Organization: Rockwell International


In article <18mr7fINN9ma@agate.berkeley.edu>, wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
> I think it would be quite right and proper for the government to switch
> to a consumption-based tax system rather than what we have now which
> is largely a tax system which discourages wealth creation and savings.

Well, taxing consumption discourages consumption.  In a recession, it's not
a great idea to discourage spending.

> I think we should phase out both the federal income tax and the social
> security payroll tax.  

> Reduce the burden on everyone, 

How? All we've talked about is shifting the source of income, not the
amount of that income.

> cut government spending, 

This is quite necessary.  I would love to see an ammendment that requires
balancing the budget.

Wade
wade@nb.rockwell.com
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Better a libertarian in Hell than a taxpayer in Heaven.
Date: 11 Sep 1992 18:04:26 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

Arrgh!  I can't stand it any more!  I've barely read 50 messages in this
newsgroup, and they are so blatantly STUPID that I can barely refrain from
responding to each.

One twit declares that he can leave his job if his employer treats him
unjustly, but he doesn't want to leave his country if his government does
likewise.  Poor baby.  He should be glad his government can't fire him.

Another twit declares people should be able to opt out of the economic
system and not have to pay property taxes.  Property IS part of the economic
system, a non-monetary component.  But it's convenient to ignore the facts.
Hey, if property isn't part of the economic system, I'm going to leave the
economic system long enough to get me some property and then return.

Still another pulls out of thin air the divine right to be left alone (which
has as much basis as the divine right of kings.)  He talks of legalizing
drugs, but punishing harshly those who are caught driving under the influence.
Where does the philosophical justification of this come from?  Driving
under the influence causes no harm unless an accident occurs.  Thus, under
libertarian thought, there should be no government interference unless an
accident takes place.  If you make an explanation about it being statistically
more probable, and thus justified, then you can punish anyone for being in a
class that is statistically more likely to offend in some manner.  Such as
being a young black male, and more statistically likely to commit a crime.
Perhaps a real libertarian solution would be that the contract with the road
owner would cover driving under drug use, but we don't need libertaria for
that: we've already got that contract as law.

The worst thing about it all is the blatant class interest that most
libertarians display.  "I'm in the upper middle class, or going to be, or
already have a better education than most people, and I want to keep
every penny I earn and the hell with everybody else, let them lie in
the gutter, let children starve, etc."

Thank goodness people haven't started spouting about objectivism here yet.
If there's one thing I hate more than the excesses of libertarianism,
it's the idiocies of objectivism.


Mike Huben

(Paraphrase)  How noble libertarianism, in it's majestic equality, that
both rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately
owned streets (without paying), sleeping under the privately owned
bridges (without paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: taxes
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: alt.politics.libertarian
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:22:11 GMT

Congrats. Kyler, you won the Find the Fallacy contest.
The old Prisoner's Dilemma, the only problem I have ever been able to
find with libertarianism.
So, how do we get around that?
Let's see: What are government expenses that everyone needs?

Transportation:
Well, toll roads force everyone who uses it to pay, and most forms of
mass transit already cost money.  (Note: while toll roads prices will
prob. stay the same (I know the Mass Pike claims not to use any tax
dollars) the price of using the subway will prob. go up.)  Maybe
businesses could get together and build a subway.  After all, their
profits would improve if people have easier access to downtown.  What
would they get in return? (e.g. how do you prevent other companies
from sponging off their subway?) Well maybe, 1) stops built for the
convience of the sponsor (e.g. their basement) 2) free rides for all
employees of the business (a little perk that might help for low level
recruiting) or 3) free advertising on board.

Trash Removal:
This one is a toughie (Me not having my trash removed could cause
sanatation problems for the whole neighborhood) but I have seen towns
with private garbage people before. How do they work it?  Maybe just
some sort of shame factor might work, the same way neighbors get
everyone to keep their lawns looking nice...

Well, those are a couple ideas, but I better get back to my work.
Like I said, this problem is a tough one...
David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
From: hagman@crs.cl.msu.edu (Tim Hagman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Statistics . . .
Summary: Statistics can lie.
Keywords: Statistcis
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:23:17 GMT
Reply-To: hagman@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <1992Sep11.204207.25671@SSD.intel.com> rogerc@ssd.intel.com (Roger Christal) writes:
>
>I heard from a reputable source that 43% of all US income tax revenues
>are paid by 5% of the population.  You're absolutely right.  These
>suckers aren't paying nearly enough!
>
One might point out that a commonly touted statistic for the US is that 10%
of the population has 90% of the wealth.  
Now -- back to basic algebra, boys and girls.  If 10% of the population has
90% of the wealth, then assuming a linear function, 5% of the population should
have about 45% of the wealth.  Of course, it is more probable that the upper 5%
would have _more than_ 45% of the wealth, but let's just say that the upper 
5% had 45% of the wealth.  

Wouldn't it make sense that they pay 43% of the taxes?  Actually, if one 
doesn't account for the distinction between wealth and income, it almost
looks as if they are not paying their fair share, nicht wahr?

Go figure -- somebody threw up a number w/o thinking about it on UseNet.
I'm shocked.  NOT.

>Is {;^) really necessary?
Yeah -- the small portrait of a doofus is completely appropriate. . .

>--
>
>>>=-  Roger Christal  rogerc@techbook.com  rogerc@ssd.intel.com  -=<<

--Standard Disclaimer: Anything I have said, written, or thought during my life 
may not under any circumstance be held against me or thought to imply any view
held by me, any organizations I have chosen to associate myself with, or any 
people who have chosen to associate themselves with me. - hagman@crs.cl.msu.edu
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian myths.
Date: 15 Sep 1992 13:37:58 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Sep15.003900.27104@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> adams@bistro.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz) writes:
>Response to article <192vihINN4da@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben):
>
>
>I didn't sign this social contract.  The underlying assumption of
>Mike's argument is that the government is my landlord.  In other words, rather 
>than the government being responsible to the people the people should be 
>responsible to the government.  I am grateful to live in this country which,
>even with it's flaws, seems like the best place in the world to live.  This
>does not imply that I should sit back and accept being tax at an unreasonably
>high level.  
>
>The government is in fact coercing me into paying taxes because I don't agree
>with how the money is being spent (I think it's being flushed down the toilet) 
>and I don't believe that the government is acting in the best interest of the
>citizens of this country.  The government spends according to political 
>convenience (using the porkbarrel method).  But, I shouldn't be forced to leave this
>country just because the government sucks.  The government should leave.  This
>is my country not the government's.
>

In effect your parents signed a contract with the government for you when 
you were born. They chose to have you born in this country, thus making
you a citizen and subject to its laws. They voted or didn't. They and their
parents were a party to the contract, or at some time in thepast decided to
come to this country.

If you don't believe the government is acting in the best interest of the
country you have several choices:

1) You can gripe about it, do nothing else and stay here.
2) You can leave.
3) You can try to change it.

If you choose the latter you would be wise to realize that there are many
people who agree with you that the govenment sucks. However, many of them
will think that it sucks in different ways than you do. I believe
the government sucks also. However, I suspect that you and I would want to
change the government in very different ways.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Better a libertarian in Hell than a taxpayer in Heaven.
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:30:39 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <18qn3aINNr8@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>Arrgh!  I can't stand it any more!  I've barely read 50 messages in this
>newsgroup, and they are so blatantly STUPID that I can barely refrain from
>responding to each.
>
>One twit declares that he can leave his job if his employer treats him
>unjustly, but he doesn't want to leave his country if his government does
>likewise.  Poor baby.  He should be glad his government can't fire him.
>
>Another twit declares people should be able to opt out of the economic
>system and not have to pay property taxes.  Property IS part of the economic
>system, a non-monetary component.  But it's convenient to ignore the facts.
>Hey, if property isn't part of the economic system, I'm going to leave the
>economic system long enough to get me some property and then return.
>
>Still another pulls out of thin air the divine right to be left alone (which
>has as much basis as the divine right of kings.)  He talks of legalizing
>drugs, but punishing harshly those who are caught driving under the influence.
>Where does the philosophical justification of this come from?  Driving
>under the influence causes no harm unless an accident occurs.  Thus, under
>libertarian thought, there should be no government interference unless an
>accident takes place.  If you make an explanation about it being statistically
>more probable, and thus justified, then you can punish anyone for being in a
>class that is statistically more likely to offend in some manner.  Such as
>being a young black male, and more statistically likely to commit a crime.
>Perhaps a real libertarian solution would be that the contract with the road
>owner would cover driving under drug use, but we don't need libertaria for
>that: we've already got that contract as law.
>
>The worst thing about it all is the blatant class interest that most
>libertarians display.  "I'm in the upper middle class, or going to be, or
>already have a better education than most people, and I want to keep
>every penny I earn and the hell with everybody else, let them lie in
>the gutter, let children starve, etc."
>
>Thank goodness people haven't started spouting about objectivism here yet.
>If there's one thing I hate more than the excesses of libertarianism,
>it's the idiocies of objectivism.

OK, if you don't like all these definitions, what better one can you
come up with?  Put up or shut up.

If you just hate libertarians and the concept of being one, then
please stop reading the group.  Useless flamage is... useless.

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: gfeygin@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin)
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Organization: University of Toronto
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:44:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.220046.16833@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes:
>gfeygin@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>>And, if desired, an equal amount can be refunded to each person. Of course
>>poor person paid less sales tax than a rich one, so poor will get all or most
>>of their tax back, while rich will get back smaller percentage. 
>
>An even easier solution is already in place (at least in Canada): everyone
>gets a "basic personal exemption", which in Canada is about $6000.  So
>you get taxed on the amount (Income - excemption), which clearly for

We were talking about sales tax replacing an income tax. Kind of difficult to
give an exemption from income tax when no income tax exists. Since sales
tax would be collected at retail level, the exemption would have to take a
form of direct refund at the end of the year. Otherwise, my idea is quite
similar to yours. 

>poorer people is a smaller percentage of their income.  Now the interesting
>bit becomes "how much should the basic personal exemption be?"  I'd
>say somewhere between $6,000 and $12,000 in 1992 dollars.
>
>-- 
>The primary goal of science is to describe whatever scientists see as being
>in need of description.
>
>Wayne Hayes     INTERNET: wayne@csri.utoronto.ca        CompuServe: 72401,3525


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou,soc.culture.magyar
From: thomasc@athena.mit.edu (Thomas Wallace Colthurst)
Subject: Re: Questions about Libertarian ideology
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:34:56 GMT

One might also add that it is by no means a foregone conclusion that
mass transit would not profitably compete against other forms of
transportation.  Keep in mind that highways and freeways are also
subsidized by the government, both in building and maintanence and
hidden costs such as environmental damage.

-Thomas C
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: "Tim Bomgardner" <bomgard@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Libertarian and objectivist idiocy
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:32:25 -0500

In article <1992Sep12.002531.22384@kronos.arc.nasa.gov> jono@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Jonathon Oliver-Summer 92) writes:
}"Tim Bomgardner" <bomgard@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:
}
}>Speaking of stupid:
}
}>Writer of big words, thinker of little thoughts.
}
}>Spoken like a true statist.  I bet you'll raise your hand when they ask
}>for volunteers to coerce bread from its rightful owners for the downtrodden
}>and oppressed poor.
}
}>In thorough contempt and disgust,
}>Tim Bomgardner
}
}Well you arguments have convinced me! From these arguments
}I can see Libertarian is the way to go.
}
}Use arguments. Please dont just abuse another article
}unless you have something intelligent to say.
}
}	Jon Oliver

If you want to complain about my lack of arguments, then quote me completely,
not just the personal slander, you dimwit.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.usa.misc,ba.politics
From: amartell@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alex Martelli)
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 20:23:43 GMT

wade@nb.rockwell.com (Wade Guthrie) writes:


>Why, on Earth, should the rich pay a higher PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes?
>I agree that the poor should pay a very small amount (if any); but, at the 
>point that taxes are imposed, a flat percentage seems fair (why penalize the
>rich?  this IS a capitalistic society, right?).

>I think it is a mistake to discount human nature when setting-up a
>governmental system.  People will not donate taxes.  People will try to make
>the most money that they can.  And, if we can tap that energy, we can tax
>it fairly (thus, encouraging the capitalist nature in all of us) and have
>a predictable income on which to run a government.

Take care about a particularly perverse disincentive which could easily
happen under a system such as you propose in the first paragraph: if at
the point that taxes are imposed, they are "suddenly" imposed at a high
rate (or similarly, if above a certain income certain benefits are lost),
then the marginal net income to the poor person hovering aroung the
threshold can become laughably small.  Similar effects are often observed
in today's "welfare" systems, where they work against making people who
are unemployed or irregularly employed look for a steady job.  Any
means-tested benefit is subject to this danger.  Similar effects can be
obtained in disincentive-free ways, e.g. the "flat 'refund' per person"
already proposed in this thread.
--
Alex Martelli - preferred email alex@am.sublink.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jono@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Jonathon Oliver-Summer 92)
Subject: Re: Libertarian and objectivist idiocy
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:25:31 GMT

"Tim Bomgardner" <bomgard@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:

>Speaking of stupid:

>Writer of big words, thinker of little thoughts.

>Spoken like a true statist.  I bet you'll raise your hand when they ask
>for volunteers to coerce bread from its rightful owners for the downtrodden
>and oppressed poor.

>In thorough contempt and disgust,
>Tim Bomgardner

Well you arguments have convinced me! From these arguments
I can see Libertarian is the way to go.

Use arguments. Please dont just abuse another article
unless you have something intelligent to say.

	Jon Oliver
From: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: property tax? was: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 12 Sep 1992 03:55:38 GMT
Reply-To: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Organization: Rice University
Originator: ervan@dawn.cs.rice.edu


In article <PRICHARD.92Sep10231601@devon.larc.nasa.gov>, prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov writes:
|> 
|>  ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:
|> 
|>    the judiciary.  Given all of that, the benefit that one derives
|>    from protection is proportional to the amount of property that
|>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>    is being protected.  Insurance for a mansion is more than for
|>    a hovel, likewise tax for defense should be more for large
|>    property owners.  Additionally, even if you have no money, your
|>    life is being protected and the potential to make money is
|>    being protected.  That *might* argue for a head tax in the sense
|>    that your body is property too.
|> 
|> last time I checked, the crime rate in the projects has been several
|> orders of magnitude higher than in the upscale areas.  by your reasoning,
|> the wealthy would pay nearly nothing for police and fire protection.  likewise,
|> "entitlements" would also be charged more heavily towards the bottom end
|> of the economic scale.
|> 

The first part of this is a good point.  The total burden would not
shift that much however since most of what people pay to the federal
government is for defense and not for law enforcement (especially
keeping in mind that the premise here is that this only makes
sense in a Libertarian government where taxes are low and drugs are
legal thus removing one of the fed's major law enforcement objectives).
In case of the U.S. losing its sovereignty, people would lose property
relative to how much they had and not the local crime rate.

As for entitlements, no it doesn't make any sense to fund them based
on the same logic.  Assumptions are noted in the previous paragraph.
There would be no entitlements under a Libertarian government.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: adams@bistro.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Positions
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:53:55 GMT

>This is one that's been bothering me too; in fact it's basically the only 
>reason I haven't officially joined the libertarian party. The official 
>form has a place to sign stating that I do not believe in the use of force
>to achieve political or social goals.  That's a very broad statement, and
>I'd really like to know what it means before I sign it.  Do libertarians
>think it's ok to send troops to foreign countries to defend our national
>interests (like in Kuwait).  This is assuming that we can all agree on 
>what constitutes our national interest. :)

The form states that you do not believe in the *initiation* of the use of
force to acheive political or social goals.  Clearly, in the case of the 
gulf war, the use of force was initiated by Saddam.  The United States 
responded to protect its perceived best interests.  

I don't think there is an official libertarian stance on foreign
affairs.  But, in general, the problem with foreign policy is
determining what is actually in our best interest.  We thought
supporting the Shah of Iran was in our best interests.  Same for
Saddam Hussein and Manual Noreiga.  Now we're also starting to supprot
Hafez al Assad of Syria.  My opinion is that, as a rule of thumb, we
should help out only other democracies unless it is clearly in our best
interest to intervene for a non-democracy (but it usually isn't).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian