HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:37:12 GMT

In article <Gf6-pD#@engin.umich.edu> kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu (Michael F. Kamprath) writes:

}(I've been sporting this .sig file for about two weeks now, but it fits
}in perfectly with this discussion.)
}
}========================================================================
}| Michael F. Kamprath                   | The University of Michigan   |
}|   kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu |      Aerospace Engineering   |
}|   kamprath@engin.umich.edu            |                              |
}+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
}| This country is a _democracy_.  It is NOT a "Two Party Sytem."  DO   |
}| NOT believe The Lie that not voting Republican or Democratic will    |
}| waste your vote.  Vote for who ever you please, and let the          |
}| politicians find out what a democratic government is all about.      | 
}========================================================================

no it isn't. it is a democratically elected _republic_, at least in
theory. when was the last time you voted for or against a federal
law, instead of a person to do it for you?
-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences
Libertarian candidate for Delaware House of Representatives, 23rd District

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Keywords: abortion,platform
Organization: The Ohio State University
 <1992Oct15.172733.17462@infonode.ingr.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:20:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.172733.17462@infonode.ingr.com> dpm@liberty.b29.ingr.com
(David Mikesell) writes:
>
>    You pro-choicer's have constructed some very clever and influental
>arguments to mask your guilt.  I give you credit for that.  But do me a favor.
>The next time someone close to you has an abortion, ask if you can be present.
>Ask the doctor if you can touch or hold the "appendage" once it is removed
>from her body.  Ask the woman how she feels.  Do you think she will feel
>indifferent, as though she has had a wart removed?  After all, the fetus was
>merely an unwanted "appendage" on her body...in fact, she should probably be
>rejoicing that she is rid of it.  But I'll bet that isn't what really
>happens...

$ set flame on

You fucking moron, do you really think I'm going to waltz into an abortion
clinic and ask doctors if I can play with parts removed from their patients
bodies?  A rational pro-lifer I can understand, but I'm ashamed to be in
the same species as you, pal.  The following is not meant for people
like Jason Steiner and others capable of rational discussion:

     You pro-lifers have constructed some very emotional and sickening
sound bites to mask your total lack of rational thought on this issue.
Instead of actually discussing rights and what aspects of humans gives
them rights, you spout off a bunch of pseudo-religious emotional crap
about dead babies laying about, and ask irrelevent questions about
why a woman who has just gone through a serious and potentially
life-threatening operation isn't bouncing off the walls with joy.

     Your accusation of guilt is uncalled for.  There is no guilt in
fighting for the rights of women to live their lives as they see fit.
Your attempt at associating guilt with the pro-choice movement is just
a smokescreen to distract people from the fact that you are in no way
thinking in terms of reason and reality.

     I don't have to touch a dead skunk to know it wasn't a person with
rights.  I don't have to watch the exterminator spray for roaches to
test my belief that non-sentient lifeforms have no right to life.  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).
Perhaps abortion is a traumatic experience.  That doesn't make it
morally wrong.

     Take your emotional fire and brimstone shit to 
alt.newgroup.for.the.reality.impaired.

$ flame off

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
"If God made Man in his own form, then does God have a penis?
 And if so...  How big is It?"
From: toma@baritone (Thomas Arneberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Is there a FAQ on Marrou/Libertarians?
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:06:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cray Research Inc.

Is there a frequently-asked-questions list about Andre Marrou and/or the
Libertarian party? Any data I could get from anonymous ftp?

I'd like to know more about the party and the candidate so I can decide
whom to vote for. I'm not sure that either major candidate deserves a vote
this time around...

Thanks,
  - Tom A.
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
;-) I'd rather be ____  Thomas R. Arneberg   | Inet: toma@cray.com
:-) singing in a |____| Senior IC Design Eng.| UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!toma
:-) Barbershop  _|   _| Cray Research, Inc.  | CLAIM TO FAME: Loni Anderson 
:-) Quartet!   (_)  (_) Chippewa Falls, Wisc.|   went to my high school 
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jkresse@ptimtc.tadw.panasonic.com (Jim Kresse ATVL )
Subject: Re: children
Keywords: children
Organization: Panasonic ATVL, Burlington, NJ
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:02:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.202413.13047@wuecl.wustl.edu> amc1@cec2.wustl.edu (Adam M. Costello) writes:
>I'm new to Libertarianism (and libertarianism--what exactly is the
>difference?)

Generally, Libertarianism refers to the activities of the
Libertarian Party, whereas libertarianism refers to the philosophy,
whom some of its adherents are not members of the Party.

Jim Kresse
jim@atvl.panasonic.com

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: amc1@cec2.wustl.edu (Adam M. Costello)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Keywords: abortion,platform
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:24:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.124855.12311@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.175218.21045@wuecl.wustl.edu> amc1@cec2.wustl.edu (Adam M. Costello) 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. 

Okay, admittedly children do have some abilities to reason, and these
abilities increase over time.  For example, I know some 5-year-olds who
can play Connect Four.  Some have barely enough reasoning ability to
determine when the game was over and who has one.  A few are able to
play somewhat strategically, looking 1 or sometimes 2 moves ahead.  But
even one of these children, when he got upset and started asking for his
mother, couldn't be made to understand that his mother simply wasn't
available.

There's a reason that we don't generally respect a child's will--because
children generally are incapable of determining what they really want.
Take for example all the cases of children asking for pets that they then
fail to take care of, or children running away only to return several
hours later.  We assume that adults, on the other hand, are capable of
determining what they really want.  At least, I hope that most adults
would be insulted at the suggestion that they aren't capable of making
that determination.

If you find unsatisfactory my argument for denying children the right of
autonomy based on their lack of reason and will, please propose an
alternate justification.  I'd be interested to hear it, since my ideas
are only a couple of months old.

AMC
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:887 alt.politics.marrou:1627
From: laemmle@sumax.seattleu.edu (Dave Laemmle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:52:52 GMT
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle, WA

From article <1992Oct12.014919.615@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley):
> In article <BvvoHB.99E.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>>The Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in PA is (loudly)
>>thought that the Libertarian stand did not include
>>advocating the criminalization of abortion.  Was I wrong?
>>Is there a split on this issue?
> The national LP platform is firmly pro-choice, and I don't think it 
> will be changing in the near future.  However, there are anti-choice 

> Every political party has its kooks.  Anti-choice Libertarians are
> amoung ours.  If your local party is running anti-choice candidates,


I thought the LP left this up to its members and did not make Abortion
a party platform. Different Libs I know are both Pro Abortion and Anti 
Abortion. In fact  I thought Ron Paul (pres. Candidate in 88) was anti-
Abortion. I don't Think abortion should be part of a party platform.
 Some people site the life beginning of conception as when civil liberties
are applicable. Thus Abortion would seriously take away a fetus's chance
to enjoy thier civil liberties and self government. Not
 all Anti-Abortion people are religious "kooks" some people have medical
facts and other reasons for being on the antiAbortion stance.
Civil liberties should be given to all human life, not just viable life.
Most pro-choice advocates have dropped the arguement of the fetus being
alive and called it a "viable life" or a "womans choice" If it is life 
then I would assume that it deserves teh chance to make its choices and
enjoy its civil lberties. I would hope libertarians would not want someone
to control their civil liberties.\

dave laemmle
   please notice that I did not cite God or any other religious being for 
   as a possible reason for not supporting Abortion.
From: stenoish@nova.enet.dec.com (Jim Stenoish)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: voucher system?
Summary: What prevents "voucher inflation"
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:10:31 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


I realize that the main advantage of vouchers is the choice they allow, but
I've been wondering if vouchers will accelerate the rising cost of education. 
My line of reasoning for this conclusion is:

    - The current value of a voucher will effectively place a floor on the cost
    of educating one person.  Since there is no incentive for a school to
    charge less than the current value of a voucher (at least, I haven't recall
    ever hearing of a voucher system that had such an incentive), the cost of
    education charged by schools will be at least as much as the current value
    of a voucher.  I would expect that most schools would routinely charge 
    more than the voucher value.  If the schools are smart, the prices will be
    just enough to cause some parental pressure for increasing the voucher 
    value, but not enough that parents will view the schools as engaging in 
    price gouging.

    - The extra cost would create political pressure from parents to raise the
    value of the vouchers.  I think the pressure would be greater than in
    current attempts to increase school spending for the following reasons:

	o Parents who have make up the cost difference with real money
	will be more vocal about raising the voucher values than the were
	before vouchers.  Chances are that even if there was a tax increase 
	to cover the increased voucher values, parents would come out ahead 
	since the cost of the vouchers will be spread among people who do not 
	use them.  Currently, increased spending in schools will always cost 
	parents, so there is some incentive for parents to resist.

	o There will be very few if any students outside of the system. 
	Currently, people who send their kids to private schools have a big
	incentive to fight school spending increases; they are paying for a
	benefit their kids don't use.  Under the voucher system, these parents
	will be joining the other side.  Since there is complete choice in
	education, the educational establishment of schools that are currently
	private will also change sides from opposing increases to fighting for
	them.

In short, it seems to me that vouchers may end up costing us more money since
they could create a larger lobbying group in favor of having taxes for
education raised.  The only pressure to keep taxes down will be from people who
do not use and are not employed by the schools.

Is this a potential problem or am I missing something?

Jim

All statements are my own responsibility and not my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Utopia is not an option
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:58:07 GMT

In article <2OCT199218054981@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> secsu@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ralph O. Clark) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.213415.2445@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes...
>[stuff deleted]
>>"Utopia is not an option".
>>
>
>Exactly what does this mean?
>Possible interpretations:
>	1) Nobody said that all problems would go away in Libertaria,
>	so stop criticizing Libertaria for having some problems.

Feel free to criticize and reccomend improvements.   That's how
the current concepts of Libertaria were built in the first place.
The point is that Libertaria has far fewer problems than today's
political system.  Pointing out the remaining problems is often 
done with the implication that any such problem makes Libertaria 
worthless; but that assumes the critic has some magic formula 
for utopia as an option.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson)
Subject: Re: Probably the biggest FAQ
Reply-To: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:14:15 GMT


I have sent Susan details about the material at think.com. I also
picked up the Perot book online from a local BBS, finally skimmed
through it last night. Right questions, wrong answers, by and large,
as I expected. A major scary point about HRP is that he seems to favor
gun control, except he admits it may not be "practical" to grab all
the guns.

-- Craig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory
From: pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination in Libertaria:  banks
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:02:55 GMT

ci: Charles Isbell (quoting the Boston Globe)
dp: Don Pajerek

ci: A landmark study released Thursday shows that banks in Greater
    Boston discriminate against Black and Hispanic mortage applicants,
    offering the most damning evidence to date of racial hurdles facing
    minority homebuyers.

dp: I don't think anyone denied that discrimination would occur in
    Libertaria. In a case such as the one you describe, the libertarian
    would note that the banks involved are somewhat less profitable by
    lending to whites who are less creditworthy than certain non-whites.
    Of course, the banks have decided informally that the price they are
    paying in profitability is acceptable, which leaves the
    mortgage-seeking non-white exactly nowhere.

Comment: even the Boston Globe gets around to saying that the study
calculates that "when everything on an application was virtually equal
except for race, minorities were rejected 17 percent of the time,
versus 11 percent for whites." (It's claimed that the study shows that
this difference is statistically significant.) This, while despicable,
shows that Mr. Pajarek's implication that minority applicants are shut
out altogether ("exactly nowhere") is off base.

One remarkable thing about the Globe article is what it leaves out, by
the way. Are some banks in Boston more "discriminatory" than others?
Almost certainly, but the article doesn't say which, even though such
data would be helpful both to minority mortgage customers and whites
who have no desire to do business with discriminatory institutions.  I
think the real agenda here is something other than a desire for fair
treatment: it's an attempted power grab by would-be regulators.
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand           | I was going to buy a copy of _The Power of
-- Univ. of New Hampshire | Positive Thinking_ and then I thought: What
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu     | the hell good would that do?
			  |     (Ronnie Shakes)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:649 alt.society.anarchy:389
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:24:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <parvin1.718418434@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
> So, if the start-up costs are such that competition won't occur, and if
> the entrenched company is making relatively enormous profits, I don't
> see any moral problem with regulation or subsidized entrance for competition.

Let me see if I can paraphrase this.  If market conditions are such that
any person would be an idiot to voluntarily invest in a competing start-up, 
you would be in favor of the government forcing all of the citizens to make 
exactly this investment.  Forgive me if I admit that I don't understand this.
-- 

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...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:941 alt.politics.marrou:1687
From: IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Nicholas C. Hester)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:05:50 GMT
 <1992Oct14.200014.26341@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 <1992Oct14.210358.11244@sei.cmu.edu> <1992Oct15.175218.21045@wuecl.wustl.edu>
Organization: University of Maine System

In article <1992Oct15.175218.21045@wuecl.wustl.edu>, amc1@cec2.wustl.edu (Adam
M. Costello) says:

>To argue that abortion is morally permissible, one must demonstrate not
>that a fetus has different rights from an infant, but that a parent's
>obligations to one are different from those to the other.  What
>rational basis can there be for this position?

Ownership of one's self by nature means the right to control one's own body.
That includes medicine, recreational drugs, or pregnancy, etc.  Without it
there are no rights or freedoms.  That's my reasoning for being Pro-Choice.

From what I see, it's not the fetus that's forcing the women to bear it; it's
other people.
___

  Nicholas  Hester                  "I'm a virgin...I'm just not good at it."
ia80024@Maine.bitnet                                 -Ramada, "Hot Shots!"
ia80024@Maine.maine.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: St. Louis Demonstration
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:41:18 GMT

In article <1bb6t0INNhkh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>
>I caught the St. Louis demonstration on CNN Headline News.  Looks
>like a good crowd, and it got national coverage...

Make that INTERNATIONAL coverage!

I saw it on Malaysian TV.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: Lever Industries
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:54:25 GMT

In article <BvGGqy.7wx@acsu.buffalo.edu> sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>	Are you a left-anarchist?  Why shouldn't lefties kick down other
>people's doors?  Are they inherently morally superior?  Then why assume
>that the righties are not?

It could happen but is less likely to happen. A majority of your community
would have to agree that it was a good idea. A majority of the region would
have to decide to not intervene. An a majority of the international community
would have to decide to let it go also. In other words there would be an
organized response that was explicit, as apposed to this theoretical market
force bring things in line.

>	Because they steal the efforts of others in doing so.

You cann't steal what is yours to begin with, that which you have created.

>The poor don't need leverage against anybody.

There won't be poor, poor are just working people who have been denied a
useful place by capitalist society. We'll be judge of what we do or don't need.
The poor can and should use an means available to them to increase their
leverage until justice is achieved. Anything else is to tie ones own hands.
-- 
--
     Edward Elhauge       You will eat (you will eat), bye & bye (bye & bye)
    Lever Industries      In that glorious land above the sky (way up high)
      San Francisco       Work & pray (work & pray), live on hay, (live on hay)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 17:48:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.225828.17347@unislc.uucp> das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten) writes:

>In a guaranteed level playing-field a cooperative venture is a great 
>solution, but when the big boys are free to use the above strategies,
>small start-up companies don't have chance.
>

I'm typing this note on a Apple MAC, its seems not too long ago there
was the evil, gigantic, mother of all corporations IBM running the
show. Then two little guys did what?

Without government intervention(force), the playing field is always level.
If my idea is good in the sense that it truly adds more value and people
can see it. it will beat even the biggest of corporations. 

Even if I lost, that just means that I  did not convince people that my
idea was better; so in the market it was not better! Only all the people can
decide whether a product has any value for them or not. If they continue to
buy the products of the big monster company and not mine, it means they are
being provided with something that I could not. You can see this with
IBM/clones. 

Still, so many comapnies make it against the big guy in all industries; that
there is no reason to "level the playing field". The arguments you made above
just don't cut it the real world. I don't know who spits out such bad vibes
in the world and what agenda they are trying to force, but don't buy into 
this argument, its just not the case.
From: brown@pollux (Daniel Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Common interests of businesses
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:07:42 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia

In article <1aqfm8INNik@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>Piffle.  If it wasn't for what vestiges of privacy law we have now, nobody
>with any significant problems logged in their medical history would be able
>to find employment with medical benefits.

Yet another good argument against Clinton's "pay or play" plan.

-- 
Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:739 alt.politics.elections:15795