HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,sdnet.wanted
Subject: Need videotape of MacNeil/Lehrer with Marrou (I'm in San Diego)
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:17:25 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Distribution: usa

I missed the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour program with Andre Marrou as
the guest.  I'd like to get a copy of the show if anyone has one.
I'm in the San Diego area (attending UCSD), so if anyone living in
the area has a tape, please contact me.  Otherwise, if you live
outside of the area, we can arrange something through the mail.

Thanks in advance...
					Matt Harrington

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Keywords: abortion,platform
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:30:41 GMT

>I
>would feel no guilt in having a tumor removed (which has its own DNA
>and is therefore just as human as any embryo right after conception).

And a tumor has hands, feet, lungs, a brain etc. And of course a tumor
react to pain. This all proves that a tumor is a living person and has
a right to life.

Yes I am being obtuse but I think you get the point.

				mike
From: ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Is Libernet echoed on this newsgroup?
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:21:58 GMT
Distribution: usa

Is the mailing list Libernet echoed on this newsgroup?

--Matt Harrington
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:27:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <104530005@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:

> Should he be in the debates?  Yeah, probably.  But who cares?

I care.

I cared when they screwed George Wallace out of equal access.

I cared when they screwed John Anderson out of equal access, and I
never contributed to the "bipartisan" Presidential Election Fund again
because of the games they played with it.

I cared when they tried to screw David Duke out of equal access, and
I needed a clothespin on my nose to go through with my protest.

I care that they're screwing Andre Marrou out of equal access, and
I'm doing what I can to see that they get the heat they deserve for
doing it.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Keywords: abortion,platform
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:48:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.175218.21045@wuecl.wustl.edu> amc1@cec2.wustl.edu (Adam M. Costello) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.210358.11244@sei.cmu.edu> ask@sei.cmu.edu (Alan Koch) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Oct14.200014.26341@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>>
>
>Why do I claim that children have no rights?  Well, what rights should
>they have?  The right to life?  No one has a right to life, as evidenced
>by the fact that everyone must die eventually.  The only right that's
>really necessary is the right of a reasoning being to exert its will
>over its possessions, without direct interference from other wills.  I
>see any other right as a corollory to this one.  Since children lack the
>ability to reason or even to have a will (both are aquired as the child
>enters adulthood, and admittedly that's a gradual process), they can't
>have this right.

I've had some contact with a two-year old, and she could reason, had
a pretty strong will, and a definite sense of property--the process may
be faster than you think. 

[stuff about abortion deleted]

Nancy Lebovitz
nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:763 alt.society.anarchy:423
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:53:17 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA



pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

> Whenever two people make an agreement in the free market, they are
> both engaging in a voluntary act. You want my $10 more than you want
> the digital watch you are selling; I want the digital watch more than
> I want my $10. After the transaction is complete, we are both happier
> than when we started. Note that there are nothing but voluntary acts
> involved here.


In article <uw7DsB2w165w@netlink.cts.com>, tumidity@netlink.cts.com writes:

> Unfortunately, a free market is rare.  Extremely rare.  In fact it is
> so rare I challenge you to give me an example of one.  Look in an
> economics text for the definitions.  The example above is not free
> market because it implies there are an unlimited number of sellers
> and buyers with a watch market at equilibrium.  Now go shopping and
> find the variance between different sellers of the same watch.  Much
> of the difference is caused by limited information (i.e., somebody is
> shopping in a discount store, they assume the $10 is the best price).
> Free markets require perfect information, which is impossible.

Nothing about Perry Metzger's example assumed perfect information.  
Perry is not defending the free-market as defined and patronizingly
defended by mainstream textbooks.  Check out Economics_on_Trial by
Mark Skousen.  For a more theoretical foundation check out Human_Action
by Ludwig von Mises.

thant
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: World Food Prize Awarded for Eco-Friendly War on Pests
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:06:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1bhpsfINNh7@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

>I invite libertarians to cite ONE example of successful eradication of
>introduced pests or diseases by the private sector in any nation.


I really get tired of these has the private sector ever done X, Y or Z
posts.

Ok I'll take this one on.  
As things now stand why should they pay their own money when they can get
big brother to do it for free.

Before big brother got into the act, the tools to do such were plain not
available.

Why would a business not want to work to get rid of pests that were
destroying its products.  Why would a company not try to coordinate with
other companies that were similarly afflicted.  If not for government they
would.

Many if not most of the big health research organizations are private
charities.  There are hundreds of these groups that have decided to
focus on single diseases.  As Reagan showed, when allowed to keep more
of their money, many people will voluntarily choose to give some of that
money to the charities that they support.

Do any of you remember all of the screaming that went on when the tax
rates were cut from 70% to 50%.  Various groups were afraid that without
the tax avoidance incentive, private donations would dry up.  In fact the
opposite occurred.

Just because the private sector isn't doing something, doesn't mean that
it can't.  It often means that it can't compete with government performing
the same function for free.  (That is, it is free to the user, the costs
are distributed to society as a whole.)

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: gally@eros.network.com (Jerry Gally)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Libertarian platform requested
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:27:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Originator: gally@eros

As a concerned voter, I am more than a little eager to explore my
alternatives, politically speaking.  As I see things, the current 
system is rotten to the core and the primary players therein 
are way overdue for early (unfunded) retirement ("primary players"
reads as Democrats and Republicans).  I could not be sicker with
the way things work nor could I be more determined to side with
people who share my sentiments.

Although I have been making noises about supporting Perot, even
HE wants to give more of my money to an already bloated and
decomposing corpse of a government which he states can act as
the "saviour" of our country.  As far as I am concerned, government
is an unsavory albeit necessary EVIL.  As a government grows in size,
so does corruption and abuses of office (human nature as far as I am
concerned).

What I am seeking is a statement of the Libertarian platform and
an evaluation of what degree Libertarian candidates act upon that platform.  

Any body care to post or email me such an animal ?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mporter@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Matthew D Porter)
Subject: Re: Weird looking people...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:13:17 GMT

In article <crb2.718469232@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthel
son) writes:
>This guy stated that he would rather have Bush than Clinton in the
>Whitehouse (which perplexed some of us...he sure looked Clinton-y!).
>
>Are you all weird looking or did I just get a sample of the extreme??
>
This is equal to me asking, "Are all republicans short-haired sons of extremely
wealthy businessmen?"  I distinctly get that impression from the sort of people
I see representing the young college republicans, but I KNOW that this is not 
true.  You just saw one person or a few people that represent the LP locally.  
I am a EE major in good standing at OSU.  My hair is just past my collar, but 
otherwise it is well-kempt.  If it were longer, and I was unshaven, would I be 
the dregs of society?

Don't be so quick to stereotype people!  What is "looking Clinton-y"?  Is that 
supposed to be a stereo-typical flower child or something.  I see all types at 
political rallies.  Keep an open mind...
-- 
 Matthew D Porter       (mporter@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)

     "Arrogance and Ignorance go in hand . . . "
          -Metallica (Holier Than Thou)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rpetty@mu.sim.es.com (Rich Petty)
Subject: Re: Cable TV
Reply-To: rpetty@mu.sim.es.com
Organization: Evans & Sutherland
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:24:01 GMT

--
In article <1992Oct16.093647.1@woods.ulowell.edu>,
cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|>
|>Everyone seems to be saying, "I'm paying too much for cable," yet they
|>don't 
|>cancel their cable.  Can anyone tell me why?
|>--Ray Cote  
|>
	Look at this! Someone is actually trying to use supply and demand
the way it is intended! If more people acted this way, we wouldn't have
to
put up with this shit, or legislate a solution! Good for you Ray!
	I had an interesting situation come up with our cable company:(TCI)
We had a really bad picture . To see a regular station we
would unhook the cable and use the "rabbit ears", it was that bad. TCI
told
us "it is being remedied". Finally, after about a month, I called and
demanded
a service rep come to my house. I was told it would be about two weeks.
My reply was that I would with-hold my payment for that two weeks. At
that the operator told me that my service would be terminated
"IMMEDIATLY".
I said "isn't that strange, you can send someone out to unhook my cable,
but
you can't come and service it? TAKE THE DAMN THING OUT!" They did, that
night!
Good riddance! (Bet I miss-spelled that)
	The government need not fix these things if consumers weren't
such sheep. You people deserve to have your rights regulated away cause
you want the government to stand up for you instead of fighting your
own
battles. The result a new law is not an expansion of rights, its just
the opposite!
Allways!


(Flame suit on!)
Later...................................Rich
Rich Petty (rpetty@mu.sim.es.com)                               
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Public schooling
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:12:14 GMT

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>Libertarians love to claim that $2500 vouchers will make schooling better.
>I strongly doubt it.  Let's look at some of the "statistics" and claims they
>like to trot out.

Mike, you could have saved some time.  If vouchers won't make schooling
better, public schools have nothing to worry about.  The vouchers won't
be used to send children to inferrior schools.  The voucher system
wouldn't prevent the public schools from reforming in any way.  The
vouchers make public schools put their money where their mouth is, and
you are justifiably worried for them.

Roger Collins
From: carl@class.gsfc.nasa.gov (Carl F. Hostetter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Libertarianism and Abortion
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:12:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: NASA/GSFC

One way of stating the Libertarian axiom is "Every human being has
the right to do whatever s/he chooses, so long as s/he does not harm
another human being."

Because I accept this axiom, I consider myself a Libertarian. The
axiom serves in virtually every circumstance to discern when individual
rights are being wrongfully infringed. For example, a Libertarian
advocates relegalization of drugs because by merely purchasing and
ingesting drugs an individual causes no harm to another. (If, however,
he causes harm to another, say by driving while intoxicated and
striking a pedestrian, then he _has_ caused harm to another, and
can be held accountable for it.)

The fundamental difficulty of the abortion issue to Libertarians
(well, at least for this Libertarian) is that there are potentially
two sets of individual rights involved, which may conflict. I say
"potentially" because, of course, it is not universally agreed that
a fetus qualifies as a human being in the Libertarian axiom.

Now, everyone agrees that the parents of an unborn child are human
beings (at least, for the sake of argument :>), and that abortion
causes harm to the fetus, whether it is human or not. So, under the
Libertarian axiom, there are two cases:

1. The fetus is a human being. If so, then by the Libertarian axiom,
abortion is wrong.

2. The fetus is not a human being. If so, then by the Libertarian axiom,
abortion is fine.

Now, of course there are subcases, which hinge on just exactly when a
fetus becomes a human being. (Virtually everyone, I think, will agree
that a newborn baby is human.) The only way to resolve this issue is to
determine whether and when a fetus is a human being.

Since a government may take action only in defense of individual freedoms 
or in redress of a trespass against those freedoms (by this Libertarian's 
views, anyways), abortion can be made illegal _only_ if it is determined 
that the fetus is a human being. In this country, under the Constitution,
the Supreme Court can make this determination (by exercising its
authority to decide whether "Constitutional protections" [a misnomer,
but that's another story] apply to the fetus or not), but has never done 
so. If it chooses to do so, then the issue will be settled one way or 
another. However, if it cannot or will not make this determination, then 
it seems to me that this determination must be left to the individual 
parents, and thus in consequence there must be no laws prohibiting 
abortion. I'm not sure that this would not be the best course.

Where do I stand on this personally? Well, morally I think that
abortion is wrong, based on my religious beliefs. However, when
I adopted the Libertarian axiom, I also learned to separate my
religious beliefs, which are personal and which I therefore apply
only to myself, from the question of what the government has the
authority to impose on others.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:46:30 -0400 
From: "Stephen P. Marting" <spam+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Fwd: Libertarians disavow Senate candidate

For those of you who have been following the Libertarian/abortion debate...

---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

X-Andrew-WideReply: clari.local.pennsylvania
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: via nntppoll with nntp; Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:02:12 -0400 (EDT)
Path:
andrew.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu!pitt.edu!u
unet!looking!clarinews
Newsgroups: clari.local.pennsylvania
Subject: Libertarians disavow Senate candidate
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:20:02 GMT
Keywords: political parties, politics, political personalities,
election,abortion, social issues
Location: pennsylvania
ACategory: regional
Slugword: pa-libertarian
Priority: daily
Format: daily
ANPA: Wc: 226; Id: z2806; Sel: panpp; Adate: 10-16-914aed
Codes: &nppdpa., &nprdpa., &npedpa., &nxadpa.


	HARRISBURG, Pa. (UPI) -- The Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate is
already an underdog, but Jon Perry got even more bad news Thursday.
	Perry's party has disowned him.
	Perry, a Clinton County surgeon has been airing anti-abortion ads
that show aborted fetuses.
	Now, the Libertarian party doesn't want to be associated with the
campaign.
	``Libertarians consistently support less government intervention in
our lives, not more,'' Libertarian party spokesman Tom Brennan told the
Harrisburg Patriot-News.
	Brennan said that Perry's stand on the abortion issue caught the
party by surprise.
	Perry originally aired the ad in Erie County, but withdrew them when
both television stations and the candidate received complaints. A few
days later, Perry said he was putting ad back on the air, but that it
would be preceded by a warning to parents, and would not be shown when
children were likely to be watching.
	Although Perry is considered a marginal candidate in the race, both
of his opponents, incumbent Republican Arlen Specter and Democrat Lynn
Yeakel, are pro-choice, and Perry could draw enough votes from anti-
abortion voters to affect the outcome.
	``I'll carry on the best way I can without them,'' Perry said of his
party's decision to leave him on his own.


--
Spam is:               | This statement needs no qualifiers.
Steve Marting          | Most people never call me this.
spam+@cmu.edu          | A cute address that wastes computing resources.
sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu   | My main address.
ap.2879@cupid.sai.com  | Mail to here is *anonymously* forwarded to me.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: ossplm@euas39c57.news (Per Lundholm)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: /home/euas28/u2/users/ossplm/.organization
	<qofu7f8@zola.esd.sgi.com> <parvin1.718395124@husc11>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:53:39 GMT


Why can't someone just shoot that damn supplier? :)

--
Per Lundholm


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: wendt@CS.ColoState.EDU (alan l wendt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Availability of private schools.  Was: Re: Public schooling
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:36:00 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department


As Kevin Cullinane points out, the term "private school" is a misnomer, unless the
school is perhaps owned by some company for the sole use of its employees' kids.
Most so-called private schools are no more private than the grocery store.  You
wouldn't call it a "private grocery store", would you?  The term "public school"
is, if anything, even worse, because it conflates "government" and "public".
It's a "government-run school".

Alan Wendt
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Subject: Re: An answer to one of David Sill's questions
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 22:31:41 GMT


In article <1bfguuINNrcp@eagle.natinst.com>, chrisb@natinst.com writes:

> P.J. O'Rourke says he is a Republican.  Most recent source, that I know
> of, is the Rolling Stone issue that endorsed Clinton (about a month ago).
> If you read his books, he definitely sounds libertarian.

Except for his fetish for military hardware.

thant
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:755 alt.society.anarchy:422
From: tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:34:53 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
> Whenever two people make an agreement in the free market, they are
> both engaging in a voluntary act. You want my $10 more than you want
> the digital watch you are selling; I want the digital watch more than
> I want my $10. After the transaction is complete, we are both happier
> than when we started. Note that there are nothing but voluntary acts
> involved here.

Unfortunately, a free market is rare.  Extremely rare.  In fact it is
so rare I challenge you to give me an example of one.  Look in an
economics text for the definitions.  The example above is not free
market because it implies there are an unlimited number of sellers
and buyers with a watch market at equilibrium.  Now go shopping and
find the variance between different sellers of the same watch.  Much
of the difference is caused by limited information (i.e., somebody is
shopping in a discount store, they assume the $10 is the best price).
Free markets require perfect information, which is impossible.

--                    
INTERNET:  tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!tumidity
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115