HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 13:31:35 GMT

: >Here is an
: >experiment that anyone can do to see who is more answerable.  The next
: >time you are in a line at the grocery store or post office compare the
: >experience.  How are you treated if you complain?  Do this at any
: >governmental agency and any private company.  Who is more responsive?
: 
: This is one theme that (honestly) bugs me about libertarianism, the
: retail theory of life (aka "the shopping mall theory".) That is (to
: paraphrase): If small shopkeepers who depend on direct service
: relationships with the public can be so wonderfully obsequious why
: can't we make the whole world like that? I feel so personally powerful
: in that situation!
: 
: Well, the whole world, no matter how you structure it, will not be in
: the position of "obsequious shopkeepers". Many will have a much more
: powerful position. For example, taken from today's society, landlords
: (some landlords, but not a tiny number, and not all either.)
: 
This is a good point.  Not all industries are known for good, ethical
practices.  Not only should you ask yourself whether the industry is
public or private, but you chould ask how much governmental regulation
is in an industry.  You mention an industry which is highly regulated in
many cities.  (BTW, the landlord I rented from when I was in college was
GREAT.)  This means that the government is partially involved.

A better example might be car dealerships.  Very few have impressed me.
I want a car dealer who will search for a win-win deal, but it is my
impression that many work in the zero-sum paradigm and work for a
win-lose.

This is one example of bad people in private enterprise.  But here is
another example.  Government schools cost an average of twice as much
than non-governmental schools.  Government school teachers are more
likely to send their children to non-governmental schools than the
average citizen.  The poor and disadvantaged are more likely to send
their children to non-governmental schools than the rich.  (I got these
facts from "Healing Our World" by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart.  I do not have it
handy so I could not do a direct quote.  She carefully referenced all
her sources so that they can be verified.)
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:07:33 GMT

In article <1ib136INN99s@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ag167@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Don Pavlish) writes:
>become quite strained. The 20-30 percent chunk that gets sent to
>Washington would certainly go a long away towards tuition, no matter

I agree with everything you said, except your "20-30 percent chunk" is
far, far too small. Remeber that 15% of your income goes for Social
Security alone. Add to that your 15-30% income tax, the 4-10% tax on
everything you buy, the tax on the gasoline you put in your car, the
tax on the tobacco you may smoke, the tax on the alcohol you may drink,
the tax on the property you may own, the tax on your utilities, and
the dozens of other taxes, and you're into quite a large percentage
-- perhaps even a majority-- of your money going to the government.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/    Finger for PGP key       | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The World
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:39:14 GMT


From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
>> Ooops, we got rid of them mostly...(and I don't mean anarchy, who? 
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>pardon me, but are you just acting obtuse or are you this way naturally?
>libertarians don't want anarchy!
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Who is being obtuse???

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:35:24 GMT

In article <BZS.93Jan7192644@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
>Some guy who made a few million dumping toxic waste or raided people's
>savings etc may not have done his planet any good, but he's living it
>up somewhere on the money and probably thinks it all worked out pretty
>well! No doubt such evility would be a huge fan of libertarianism,
>these guys slip thru the currently regulated environment.

I seem to have enormous difficulty seeing how someone can make a few
million dumping toxic waste (unless citizens do not sue that person
for ruining theirp property -- hardly likely).  Or how someone can
make a few million raiding people's savings, when a crucial point of
libertarianism is that one's property cannot be taken without one's
consent, whatever the circumstance.  Perhaps you are assuming that
people are stupid and cannot be counted upon to protect what is
theirs.  It's a rather malevolent notion.

>Other than when the electorate acts "irrationally" and imposes taxes
>on themselves soas to pay for the common weal.

What is ``the electorate''?  What gives ``the electorate'' (i.e.,
other people) the right to decide if I should be held at gunpoint to
pay my taxes?

>If you let people vote etc then the process is fair and we try to live
>with the results. Libertarianism sort of believes the process is fair,
>it's not clear since they immediately revert to ignoring the
>democratic process and talking about the govt as if they were a
>dictatorship when it suits them, but the results of the process don't
>seem to suit their personal tastes. Well, lah-dee-dah, welcome to
>politics in a democratic society, win some, lose some, but that's all
>you can really say in the end.

The whole problem with a democratic society is that at any time, 50.1%
of the society can vote to wreck the livelihoods of the remaining
49.9%.  Do you consider this good government?  Does sound quite
dictatorial to me...

Han-Young Huang
hhuang@athena.mit.edu
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Who is protected from force and fraud by libertarian anarchy?
Date: 4 Jan 1993 23:04:49 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan4.214755.27215@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>As I understand Libertarians believe that laws should be only to prevent
>force or fraud.  I don't see how pro-life would be inconsistent with
>this.  Abortion imposes force on a fetus...

This raises a very interesting question for libertarian anarchists.  Perhaps it
has been answered somewhere before.

Presuming an anarchistic libertaria, where you purchase protection and law
enforcement (for fraud and theft) from private police/military/judiciary:

Presumably purchasers of these government services will be prohibited from
initiating force or fraud upon purchasers from the same source or purchasers
from sources with reciprocality agreements.

But will there be any prohibition upon initiating force or fraud against
anyone else?  Say someone who has not purchased any government services?
What could compell all vendors of government services to prohibit this?

Will someone be able to purchase government services to protect unclaimed
or disputed "property" or "individuals" such as whales or fetuses?

Mike Huben

"I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked
at it the right way, did not become still more complicated."  Poul Anderson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,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: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:15:20 GMT

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?

-- 
==========================================================================
              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,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 18:35:34 GMT

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.
: 
: How's he doing these days?

I have heard Richard Boddie speak twice.  Once in Atlanta about two years
ago and again in Chicago.  He is a tall black man who is an excellent 
speaker and very charismatic.  He may have gotten his charisma from his
father (who I also heard speak in Chicago) who is a minister of a
Baptist church in Nashville, TN.

I was very impressed when I met him and have met several people that
highly respect him.
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,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 07:30:52 GMT

In article <1ihiguINN57b@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>I partly agree with you.  But let's talk about claims, beliefs and
>understanding for a moment.  "Demopublicans" only have (roughly) 200 years
>of real world example of functioning government here in the USA with which
>to evaluate claims.

What??  Until the early 1900s, this was the most libertarian country on earth.
The government of the last 80 to 90 years bears little resemblence to the
the government (or lack thereof) preceding it.  

From about 1750 to the early 1900s, the U.S. had an economic boom unprecedented
in human history.  There was no charity beyond private charity, little 
government interference in markets or private life, no minimum wage or
drug prohibition, no income taxes, no federal reserve, no FDIC, and in general
there was little tolarance for the socialist demopublican ideas that you love
so much.  Just a lot of wealth to be had and the freedom to get it.

You do NOT have 200 years of history to back you up.  You have 80 or 90 years
of decline to show the value of your ideas.  The libertarian thinkers have the
preceding years of growth to back up their ideas.

  Thanks awfully,
             Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley)
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: 5 Jan 1993 07:24:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: weber.ucsd.edu

In article <4JAN199322094401@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>Perhaps a reason your clever arguments as to why libertarians are "randites"
>fails is because libertarians are for the most part not randites and they
>know they aren't randites.  Also,  your argument that "lower class 
>libertarians" don't count because they shouldn't be libertarians is utterly 
>hollow,  not to mention insulting.  Can it be true that you actually think 
>that's a valid argument?
>
>Mr. Grinch

mr. grinch, huh? ok...i never said "lower class libertarians don't
count" (whatever that means), that's all yours.  i said libertarians
whatever their class origin (especially those who post to this
network) tend to believe in utterly nonsensical
conceptions of human agency, have little demonstrated understanding
of social construction and cultural relativity and therefore draw
rather simplistic (and often ridiculous) conclusions as to how
society works.  that's all. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3415 comp.org.eff.talk:8628 soc.culture.usa:9733 alt.activism:20442
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:01:53 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:

[whether government or business is more answerable to the public]

>I want private corporations and the individuals within them to be
>answerable when they use fraud or steal from other people.  Here is an
>experiment that anyone can do to see who is more answerable.  The next
>time you are in a line at the grocery store or post office compare the
>experience.  How are you treated if you complain?  Do this at any
>governmental agency and any private company.  Who is more responsive?

Now, follow this experiment with a request to see the profit margins
and salaries in the private corporation...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:46:15 GMT

In article <1il10qINN7l5@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>Amusing, but stupid.
>
>One purpose of any government (minarchist, anarchist, or our current one) is
>to prevent you from having to buy protection from more than one source.
>I'm afraid you're going to have to pay for it no matter what under a minarchy,
>and if you try not to pay for it in an anarchy, woe betide.

I have a problem with the current "protection" provided by police, et. al.
In most cases they protect the "status quo", not the rights of citizens.
If you dare to cross this "status quo" voluntarily or otherwise, you are a
target for abuse.

I am forced to pay for this "protection"  I have no choice.  It hurts me
deeply to support those who I see bullying innocent people.  If I at least
had a choice, I could pay someone with some respect for the "little guy".
 
>Of course, I can also make a cartoon of libertaria in a similar vein:
>you miss a payment on your loan, and your bank shoots you dead for initiating
>fraud.

Nice cartoon, but upon reflection, banks wouldn't do this.  Any bank with a
reputation for shooting late payers would have few, if any customers.

                                         James Parker
                                         jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:54:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.233259.25877@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes:
>Libertarians ignore "the deeply irrational vagaries of human nature"?
>Like Greed?  Like selfishness?  Like territoriality?  Just the opposite.
>Libertarianism is the political philosophy that embraces these things
>and recognizes the paradoxical utility of such vagaries and the fact
>that they exist along side other human traits such as love, charity, 
>and forgiveness in the crazy quiltwork of society.  Libertarians love
>complexity and a future that is totally inscrutable and are not afraid of
>such a future as long as fraud and the initiation of force have been 
>banished from human relations.  Our quarrel with the societal entity 
>commonly called government is that it commits wholesale initiation of 
>force - based on "empirical observations".  Will a libertarian society
>have great inequities?  Will it have destroyed and broken people?  Yes,
>most likely, at times.  These things are certainly possible where there
>is no force or fraud.  And it is almost certain that society will
>continue to change.  The libertarian notion is that as society changes,
>in order for it to be civilized, the ethic of no initiation of force
>or fraud must be at its foundation.

Perhaps you can help me with something:  I am a practicing civil libertarian 
and generally support libertarian ideals, but there seems to be something 
missing.

The basic tenet of libertarianism is that there should be no coercion of the 
individual to act in a manner he does not desire to act in.  This is further 
defined out as the initiation of physical force or "mental force", fraud.  
These are two abuses of power that are covered.  Formal libertarian doctrine 
does not seem to address the abuse of economic power. The problem that most 
contemporary liberals have with libertarianism is that is fails in this area.

Here is a grossly simplifed example:  Joe Richguy wants my land, and I 
refuse to sell.  So joe buys all of the land around my land and forbids me 
to trespass unless I sell.  Thus, _I_ am forced to sell my land or live in 
isolation.

How does libertarianism address this?  I can't seem to puzzle it through.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 09:30:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.233259.25877@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes:
>In article <4159@randvax.rand.org>, edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes:
 
>|> I agree--I think he is very insightful as to why libertarianism is
>|> attractive to programmers.  It exceeds even Marxism in developing a
>|> logically consistant conceptual model of society.  However, the ability
>|> to develop and mentally analyze such a model of social interaction
>|> doesn't mean that such a model is accurate or complete.  Social theories
>|> which ignore the deeply irrational vagarities of human nature or consign
>|> them to a heap of undesirable traits are destined to fail.  One good set
>|> of empirical observations are worth thousands of exquisitely crafted and
>|> self-consistent theories.
 
>Libertarians ignore "the deeply irrational vagaries of human nature"?
>Like Greed?  Like selfishness?  Like territoriality?  Just the opposite.

Actually, some do and some do not.  Libertarians are a terribly diverse
bunch on philosophical issues.  That's why I'm not one.

Perhaps you were thinking of Objectivists instead?

>Libertarianism is the political philosophy that embraces these things
>and recognizes the paradoxical utility of such vagaries and the fact
>that they exist along side other human traits such as love, charity, 
>and forgiveness in the crazy quiltwork of society.  

Why do you consider these to be incompatible or paradoxical?  Would you
really want unselfish love?  Self-destructive charity?  Irrational forgiveness?
I wouldn't.  What is really incredible is that so many people consider
selfishness, greed, and human nature to be evil.

--Brian
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:31:12 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan6.040058.8155@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

|that depends very much upon your definition of "force", doesn't it?
|for example, if another adult did to a woman's body what a fetus does to
|it, there is no doubt in my mind that it would be considered force and
|the woman would have the right to remedy the situation. i would say
|she does as well in the fetus situation.

But who initiated the force.  It certainly wasn't the fetus.

|i have a friend who compared a pregnancy to a parasitic infection.
|i was repulsed at this comparison, and don't share his view, but when
|i sat down to argue against it, i found it quite difficult to refute.
|the fetus *is* living off its mother, much as a parasite lives off its host.
|the only real counter-argument i had related to responsibility of
|creation of the fetus; in that the analogy fails, but only sometimes.
|what if the mother had every reason to believe conception was impossible?

|i welcome any arguments you folks out there might have.

Two comments.  While a parasite does cause infection, the fetus does not
cause pregnancy, it is the result.
Secondly, a bacterium or virus, is not human, nor will it ever become human.
This is not true for the fetus.  In my world view, humans have rights that
bacterium do not enjoy.

|(P.S. no labels, please -- me wife and i are actually expecting, and
|i am quite happy about it!!)

Congrats.  BTW my wife is also expecting, me I'm just anxious.
-- 
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