HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: How to get from here to there (was Local Libertarian government)
Date: 12 Nov 92 12:51:26 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <BxKwIt.MCL@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
	sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.191606.11105@uoft02.utoledo.edu>,
	jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes...
>>ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
>>[...]
>>so what's the best way to promote libertarian ideals
>>on local level? how would a libertarian city government work, for
>>example?
>> 
>	{stuff deleted....}
> 
> 	Also, zoning laws could be repealed... along with other
> harmful city regulations.
> 
> Mark Sulkowski

   Ah! Now HERE is a barrel of worms were libertarians are likely to
   come unstuck unless some very careful thought is applied.

   In fact, this topic comes under the general heading of "How do we
   get from here to there", which it would be good to start a thread
   on.

   Of course, I, as a Libertarian, think that it is preposterous for
   the government to try to tell me what to do with my land. Does this
   mean that I don't have an interest in what my neighbours might do
   with theirs? Of course not. I would be most upset if my neighbours
   started a reform school for criminals next door. At present, zoning
   laws, for all their faults, protect me (to an extent) from such an
   intrusion. I looked into such laws before purchase, and as such,
   these limitations were factored into the higher price I had to pay
   for my house.

   The way that my interests would be protected in libertaria is
   through restricted deeds in land usage. The previous owners might
   have got together with the neighbouring land owners and established
   their own policies for land usage, and written these into the
   deeds. That way, I buy my land knowing that I can only put one
   house on it, and that I cannot start a chicken farm, or whatever.
   Condo purchasers are familiar with this process, at least in a more
   limited way.

   But if you go straight out and say that "zoning laws will be
   repealed" without such deed restrictions being in place, you are
   going to alienate property owners (including me) who have bought
   their land with zoning restrictions substituting for restricted
   deeds. If my neighbour, with her new freedom to do whatever,
   decides to start a reform school and lowers my house price, I am
   out of pocket (and probably out of a home).

   Tread carefully, those who love liberty! This is just the sort of
   issue which will keep Libertarians marginalized.

Tony Cox, Stanford, CA.
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Marrou/Lord Vote Totals Please!
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:28:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Nov04.185107.47472@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, eldarop@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Jesse Pietarinen) writes...
>This is regarding last article I sent.  You can also try calling the 
>Secretary of State's office in your state for the total state tally
>Colorado has to wait 20 days for state tally, but I called California
>and they gave me a total of 44,418 (.4%) for Marrou at the Secretary of
>State's office.

>Thanks,
> 
> 
>Jesse D. Pietarinen

Looks to me like Marrou got about 500,000 votes nationwide, at most.
About the same as Ron Paul did with fewer states.  Very unimpressive.

Does anybody know if there is an equivalent to the Republican Liberty
Caucus or Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee (or whatever it's
called now) in the Democratic Party?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: jim@atvl.panasonic.com (Jim Kresse)
Subject: Re: This Stupid "LaRouche is a Lib" Thing
Reply-To: jim@atvl.panasonic.com
Organization: Panasonic ATVL
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:42:39 GMT

In article 384@well.sf.ca.us, rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov6.200613.2793@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> you write:
>>   As I was trying to persuade people to vote Libertarian in this past 
>>election, I had as many people as not ask me "Isn't Lyndon LaRouche a 
>>Libertarian?" This is a *very* widespread belief.
>>   Here are my questions:
>>   (1) Has LaRouche ever been a Libertarian? If so, when and what did he do?
>
>No, he has never been affiliated in any way whatsoever with the
>Libertarian Party or any of it's affiliates.  I believe he was once
>registered with one of the Socialist splinter groups (Workers' World?
>something like that) in the early 1970s, but other than that he has
>always been a Democrat.  It's useful to tell people this when they
>ask, because it's easy to explain afterwards the extreme unlikelyhood 
>of a socialist-leaning Democrat being associated with Libertarians.

He was originally was a candidate of the US Labor Party (how about those initials?)
and later ran as a Democrat, prior to this election.

---
Jim Kresse
jim@atvl.panasonic.com
Standard disclaimers apply

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: free market
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:29:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.041738.17774@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
}  1) Libertarians arranging protests and consumer boycotts against firms
}  that have employment contracts with individuals that include drug and
}  lie-detector tests.  If a firm thinks it is in its best economic
}  interest to have drug and lie-detector tests, shouldn't they be free
}  to hire only those willing to take these tests?

Yes, they should.

}  2) Libertarians arranging protests and consumer boycotts against
}  newspapers and television stations that did not give them "fair"
}  campaign coverage.  Should Libertarians be telling the media what
}  to do with their private property?  The Libertarians might be in a
}  catch-22 on this one.  In a free market, only those with money have
}  power -- but the Libertarians have no money and thus no power.  And
}  they can't even complain about it, because that is the system they
}  are advocating.

Assuming no fraud, you've almost got us.  We support their right as private
agencies not to cover us, but not to lie outright in excluding us.  For
example, in the last Texas gubernatorial race, the LP candidate got 3% of
the vote, making Ann Richards the winner by only a plurality, not a clear
majority.  But the news agencies, both TV and print, omitted this, and
normalized the numbers, allocating the LP candidate's votes to only the
GOP and Democratic party candidates, thus misleading the public into thinking
that Ms. Richards had a greater mandate than she actually did.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:08:36 GMT

In article 9638@gandalf.rutgers.edu, shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan) writes:
>There for Clinton wins because he had the least number of people who
>didn't want him to be President.
>
>Whats your point?

You just made it for me.

thx
gak

---
I guess there's some things          |      Seems like the more I think I know
I'm not meant to understand          |                 The more I find I don't
Ain't life a riot? Ain't love grand? | Every answer opens up so many questions
Richard Stueven                 gak@wrs.com            ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2243 alt.politics.libertarian:1837
From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:54:06 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: icat.larc.nasa.gov

rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:

>This would be a hard argument to support considering in the current
>system, we already have more people incarcerated per capita than any
>other country in the world, the most lawyers, and probably the most
>litigation.  The drug war alone soaks up about half the money we spend
>for law enforcement.

Of course we have more people incarcerated per capita.  Places like
Peru and Chile just murder anyone who *might* have done something to
piss off the police.  I heard a few months ago on the radio that
some Red Cross (or whoever) people found mass graves with over 40,000
rotted bodies.  Most had died from single-shot-to-head "viruses."

Real easy to keep down those darned incarceration statistics, huh?

-- 
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681
Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-7793,   Email: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov
PGP 2.0 Public Key now available -- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: free market
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:43:32 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <BxJnvw.E5I@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.105846.13999@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>>In article <BxFyIE.J7B@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>}In article <8NOV199221071536@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>>}>For those who care,  here's the essential argument for a free market:
>>}>
>>}>1) a free (uncoerced) transaction is beneficial to both parties (otherwise 
>>}>they wouldn't make the swap),  thus resulting in an increase of total utility.
>>}>
>>}>2) Any interference with the free market is effectively a constraint which
>>}>prevents utility-increasing transactions from taking place.
>>}
>>}  What if the transaction is harmful to third parties who are not participants
>>}in the transaction. This applies to all kinds of situations including victims
>>}of theft, victims of pollution, etc.
>>
>>That's easy.  They're coerced transactions.
>
>  It's only easy if you're simple-minded enough to ignore the point. The
>effect on the third party is coerced but s/he is not party to the transaction
>itself, which may be uncoerced. The point is that regulation has a place in
>the so-called marketplace to avoid and or minimize these effects, whether
>intended or just irresponsible, on innocent third parties.
>
>>
>>Not all utility increasing is beneficial
>>}to society as a whole or to anyone other than the immediate participants. That
>>}is why completely free, unregulated markets are not appropriate in complex
>>}societies with non-ideal participants and competing interests.
>>
>>Wrong, but where to begin refutation?  Some literacy in Austrian theory is
>>required here.
>
>  Cut the self-important hand-waving crap and make your point to us poor,
>ignorant slobs or just admit you don't have one.
>
What you are missing, Jeff, is that many Libertarians deny the very
existance of "societal value" or "societal needs".  There are only
individuals.  This enormous leap of faith is required to avoid the
issue of such societal harm and is a classic example of redefining
reality to fit ones ideology or theory.
>-- 
>Jeff Sicherman
>up the net without a .sig


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform (Was: Oh, never mind)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:05:11 GMT

  That's the first time in a while that I've seen the Liberatarian
  platform spelled out.  It contains a lot of government activities
  you want to get rid of, but I'm not sure what you want to keep.

  If the Liberatarians had control, what types of government spending,
  taxes and regulations would there be?  This should be a pretty short
  list, right?
  ==

  Bob
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: free market
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:25:02 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <1992Nov11.184332.23748@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <BxJnvw.E5I@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov9.105846.13999@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>>>In article <BxFyIE.J7B@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>>}In article <8NOV199221071536@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>>>}>For those who care,  here's the essential argument for a free market:
>>>}>
>>>}>1) a free (uncoerced) transaction is beneficial to both parties (otherwise 
>>>}>they wouldn't make the swap),  thus resulting in an increase of total utility.
>>>}>
>>>}>2) Any interference with the free market is effectively a constraint which
>>>}>prevents utility-increasing transactions from taking place.
>>>}
>>>}  What if the transaction is harmful to third parties who are not participants
>>>}in the transaction. This applies to all kinds of situations including victims
>>>}of theft, victims of pollution, etc.
>>>
>>>That's easy.  They're coerced transactions.
>>
>>  It's only easy if you're simple-minded enough to ignore the point. The
>>effect on the third party is coerced but s/he is not party to the transaction
>>itself, which may be uncoerced. The point is that regulation has a place in
>>the so-called marketplace to avoid and or minimize these effects, whether
>>intended or just irresponsible, on innocent third parties.
>>
>>>
>>>Not all utility increasing is beneficial
>>>}to society as a whole or to anyone other than the immediate participants. That
>>>}is why completely free, unregulated markets are not appropriate in complex
>>>}societies with non-ideal participants and competing interests.
>>>
>>>Wrong, but where to begin refutation?  Some literacy in Austrian theory is
>>>required here.
>>
>>  Cut the self-important hand-waving crap and make your point to us poor,
>>ignorant slobs or just admit you don't have one.
>>
>What you are missing, Jeff, is that many Libertarians deny the very
>existance of "societal value" or "societal needs".  There are only
>individuals.  This enormous leap of faith is required to avoid the
>issue of such societal harm and is a classic example of redefining
>reality to fit ones ideology or theory.

  Apparently so. It seem easier, and basicly misanthropic with a friendly
face to ignore that the societal interest, however ill-defined and formulated
or implemented, is a reflection upon the effects done to individuals who make
up that society.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: free market
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:58:46 GMT

In article <BxFyIE.J7B@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
}In article <8NOV199221071536@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
}>For those who care,  here's the essential argument for a free market:
}>
}>1) a free (uncoerced) transaction is beneficial to both parties (otherwise 
}>they wouldn't make the swap),  thus resulting in an increase of total utility.
}>
}>2) Any interference with the free market is effectively a constraint which
}>prevents utility-increasing transactions from taking place.
}
}  What if the transaction is harmful to third parties who are not participants
}in the transaction. This applies to all kinds of situations including victims
}of theft, victims of pollution, etc.

That's easy.  They're coerced transactions.

Not all utility increasing is beneficial
}to society as a whole or to anyone other than the immediate participants. That
}is why completely free, unregulated markets are not appropriate in complex
}societies with non-ideal participants and competing interests.

Wrong, but where to begin refutation?  Some literacy in Austrian theory is
required here.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: gletty@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Bruce Gletty)
Subject: Re: semi-automatic weapons
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:54:02 GMT

ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:

>Now I don't think that we should compromise on principles, but we
>should examine the fact (?) that maybe the American public is
>not ready for a Libertarian federal government. Maybe, instead
>of blowing a wad on an unwinnable presedential race, we should
>blow 1000 milliwads on possibly winnable state and local races.

This would probably be the best strategy (in my opinion anyway). On
the local level, the LP would be able to deal with all the ingrained
predjudices in the US political system more effectively. There is
an attitude in this country that nothing is the people's fault and
the government can fix anything. The LP goes against this pretty 
much 100%, and on a national level, its one of several huge obstructions.
On a local level, the candidate can talk with most of the voters and
convince them he/she is not a nut case.

>We have to get our principles accepted at the local level before
>anyone will accept them on a grand scale. In other words, semi-automatic 
>weapons are not an issue in the town council race...

They were an issue in Urbana quite recently. The gun-banners tried to
get an 'anti-assault weapon' ordinance passed that would have banned
almost every gun I can think of. The police were against it, and it
failed; but it was indeed a local city council issue.
-- 
This post is mine, and does not necessarily reflect the views of C.C.S.O.
From: abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Industrial policy
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:41:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

This is sort of the wrong group, but does anybody know if Clinton has
endorsed technology endorsement, that is, having some government agency
declaring which technologies are important to the development of the economy?
I've been trying to glean some specifics from the newspapers, without much
success. They just talk about Industrial Policy as if we all just know what
it means.

Steve abell@netcom.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2139 alt.politics.libertarian:1677
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Marrou shows his true colors!
Date: 6 Nov 1992 15:49:47 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Nov6.095807.28880@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>If you'd read any elementary libertarian literature such as "Economics in
>One Lesson," you'd be disabused of this incorrect notion.  It is precisely
>the opposite: libertarians take into account all costs and benefits accruing
>to everyone, and conclude, many by means of utilitarian analysis (such as
>6 libertarian Nobel Prize winners in economics) that free markets are best.

If you'd only accept JESUS as your LORD and SAVIOR, and open your mind to
the WORD of the LORD in the HOLY BIBLE, you'd see the error of your ways
and no longer believe in EVILOUTION!  :-(

Why is it that libertarians here (like you) seem to be incapable of
transmitting these TRUTHS in their postings?

Why do I suspect that "Economics in One Lesson" is as complete and rigorous
as a Chick Publication?

"Free markets are best" for EVERYTHING?  I suspect that depends strongly on
how you define best.  It also depends on how you measure costs and benefits.

Isn't it funny that libertarians are not the only ones who win Nobel Prizes
in economics?  And that Nobel prizes are awarded for non-libertarian programs
as well?  And that it is public funding that supported the research activities
of most Nobel Prize winners?

Look, if you would like to rebut me, why not be specific?  Give up the
handwaving towards libertarian propaganda and show that you can make an
argument for yourself.  Provide a summary of an example where "all the
costs and benefits accruing to everyone" has been used in libertarian
analysis.  Why, if it really is all there in that analysis, then when I
ask "what about such-and-such", you should be able to cite a page number
and describe what it says.

Mike Huben

"Enough of acting the infant who has been told so often how he was found under
a cabbage that in the end he remembers the exact spot in the garden and the
kind of life he led there before joining the family circle."   Samuel Beckett
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2224 alt.politics.libertarian:1827
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:40:15 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:

>	Well, the way Andre Marrou explained it to the media, there are
>three government services that are basic to the protection of individual
>rights, they are: national defense, a system of courts, and police.
>If government does any more than protect individual rights, it is
>probably violating them in some way, and so rights-respecting Libertarians
>want government to do very little else.  Those three services would
>comprise the bulk of the government, and the total cost would be much,
>much less than the cost of the government we have now.

The counter-argument here is that if government is reduced to these
three services, there would be more crime and also more civil court
cases, so the size of these would be considerably increased.  As there
is little evidence either way, it requires an act of faith (based
on one's understanding of human nature) to state that the total
cost would be much, much less than now.  [There is also the problem
of funding a legislature (to enact any laws) and an executive (to
take initiatives) in responding to changes in social structure; it
requires another act of faith to say that these are unnecessary.]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Systems design flourishes best when it is half a trade and half an art...
From: abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: semi-automatic weapons
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:35:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Regarding Ed Stokes comment about offending potential LP supporters by
saying that semi-auto weapons are necessary to defend ourselves from the
government:

Well, we can tell the truth or sell cosmetics. If we did have to defend
ourselves against a government that really turned vicious, a semi-auto
rifle with a big magazine is about the *smallest* weapon I'd care to make
do with, and this would be small comfort indeed.

The second amendment is our claim to being able to deal with some very ugly
possibilities. If those possibilities seem remote, the second amendment is
why.

No sane person *wants* to get into a gunfight for any reason. But it's also
completely insensible to say that we mustn't talk about such things. They're
real problems requiring real answers, and pretending that the problems don't
exist is not one of the answers.

Steve abell@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou