HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The Draft
Date: 12 Nov 1992 00:23:06 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <19921106143813ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
>In article <1d9ruaINN478@armory.centerline.com>, on 5 Nov 1992 01:04:09 GMT,
>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>But, being human, we need humans to interpret a deliberately vague document.
>> [The constitution and ammendments.]
>This is a typical left-liberal fiction. I surprised that you don't give
>us the rest of the "living, breathing, expanding document" picklepoop
>as well.

Perhaps you're surprised because you're trying to think via stereotypes.

>Find me even just one contemporary source among the framers
>of the Constitution who gives the slightest bit of substantiation to
>your assertion of the Constitution's deliberate vagueness.

Whether or not vagueness was a deliberate intention, it has been treated
for 200 years (starting shortly after ratification) as if it was so.
You also seem to agree that it needs interpretation.  You had written earlier
in the same message:

>This is not to say that the Constitution is never vague and capable of
>interpretation. For example, cruel and unusual punishment is inherently
>relative to the customs of a particular society  at a particular time.

I'd like you to explain why the framers of this ammendment made it so
vague, if not deliberately, and how they expected anyone to know what it
really meant without some arbiter of its interpretation.

>However, a shamefully high number of rulings are made counter to what
>is actually stated in the text.

Considering that the Supreme Court is hardly ever unanimous in its rulings,
I'd say that what is actually stated in the text is not as simple to interpret
as you'd like.  For a start, there is the problem of conflict between the
principles.  This is clearly seen in most dissents, when the justices accuse
each other of ignoring important points.

Perhaps you'd like to propose a better way of interpreting the constitution,
ammendments, and laws?

Mike Huben

"It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy books and by
eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate
the habit of thinking of what we are doing.  The precise opposite is the
case.  Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations
which we can perform without thinking about them."  Alfred North Whitehead

[This is true of law also.  Thus the Supreme Court as arbiter.]
From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:19:22 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: icat.larc.nasa.gov

>In article <1992Nov8.232622.26405@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>> Philosophically, the answer is clear: natural
>> aptitudes must not affect social position in a negative way
>> (that would be unfair to the person with the aptitude), but
>> neither should those aptitudes lift the person above the rest
>> (that would be unfair to the people WITHOUT the aptitude).

Huh?  Who said life was fair?  Is it "fair" for a fox to kill a momma
rabbit (and her cute little bunnies die as a result) so said fox can
feed her (also very cute) little babies just because that particular fox
happened to be a bit quicker and more agile than that particular rabbit?
Fairness is irrelevant.  The maximum benefit to all concerned is had
when all individuals excel to the limits of their abilities.  This will
naturally cause conflicts, and some will survive better than others.
So be it.

In the case of people, it most certainly IS FAIR (as if it mattered)
for individuals whose special skills and aptitudes generate more
wealth in the society to reap the benefits, especially when you keep
in mind that aptitude is not production.  Without perseverence and
sweat, aptitude itself is also irrelevant.  It is simply incredible
to me that someone should think it "fair" to live off the good planning
and hard work of others.  For God's sake, man, take responsibility for
your own situation and WORK to better it.  And leave my wallet alone.

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
-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1610 alt.politics.marrou:2086
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Date: 5 Nov 1992 14:29:41 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Nov3.002719.4221@telesciences.com> msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct25.024349.28577@tamsun.tamu.edu>, rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>>Hmmm.  It says here:
>>   16th Amendment
>>      The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
>>   incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment
>>   among the several States and without regard to any census or
>>   enumeration.
>
>Summary: Taxation without representation isn't so bad after all.

Have you read the rest of the constitution?  You have representatives in
congress.

In my public school social studies classes, we would have failed for merely
asserting something like that.  As in math classes, we were penalized for
not showing the work we had done to reach our results.

>>Seems pretty Constitutional to me.  There are many abuses of the 
>>Constitution, but the Personal Income Tax would seem to be excepted.
>
>The 5th Amendment says that private property shall not be taken for
>public use without just compensation.  Yet, every other week I notice
>that 1/4 of my private property has been confiscated from my paycheck
>without just compensation given.  I don't consider waste, fraud, and
>abuse by elected representatives to be just compensation.
>
>Has the 16th Amendment completely superseded the 5th?  The two aren't
>incompatible, really.  An income tax would be more bearable if I
>received something in return of equal value, but I don't.

The 5th Amendment has always been read as "exclusive of taxes".  I believe
the intent has been determined to mean confiscation of particular properties,
as opposed to taxation of an entire class.  Thus, "just compensation" does
not apply to taxes.  There may even be a legal presumption that services
of the government are the just compensation for taxation, though that is
speculation on my part.

I also think that "just compensation" has been found to be whatever is
legislated by your representatives (subject to judicial review), rather than
what the owner thinks is just.

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
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: GOOD NEWS IN PA!(Fwd:State gains two new official political parties)
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:41:19 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <8eygdf_00WBOE4VXwE@andrew.cmu.edu> kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Karin Brennan) writes:
>---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------
>
>	HARRISBURG, Pa. (UPI) -- Going into Tuesday's elections there were
>only two officially recognized political parties in Pennsylvania, but
>now there are four.
...
>	The Perot Party's namesake, Ross Perot, got 18 percent of the state
>vote for president. Five Libertarian candidates got 2 percent or more in
>statewide races, including U.S. Senator and auditor general.
...
>	Odhner said the party's strong showing was due to a combination of
>factors.

The strong Libertarian Party showing in PA had something to do with
coalition building.  Both the US Senate and Auditor General candidates on
the Libertarian ticket were pro-life.  Their opponents were each
pro-abortion.  The Libertarian candidates attracted many pro-life voters,
especially among the Republicans.

The LP will continue to expand in PA only if it reaches out to other groups
that share similar (but not identical) interests.  Disavowing folks like
Jack Perry just before the election will not help that process.  It's like
cutting off your nose to spite your face.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Clinton's Inauguration Speech
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:59:02 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <1992Nov3.215202.13460@EE.Stanford.EDU>, bill@isl.Stanford.EDU (Bill Moore) writes:
|> 
|> At least Picard has an artificial heart, better than none at all...
|> 

Why does everyone assume Libertarians are heartless??  Just because I don't
believe the government has the right to take money from me and give it to
someone else doesn'e mean I don't believe in charity.  I just believe it is
best left in the hands of people more qualified to handle it.  I consider 
myself to be a libertarian  (and probably soon a Libertarian) and freely
donate to my church.  If the government didn't steal so much from me, I would
gladly give even more.  I would like to see that money go to homeless
people or battered wives or abused children, not to struggling "artists" who
make garbage from my earnings or any of a thousand other wastes of the taxpayers
money.  Let those who want to support trash do so themselves, but don't take
my earnings, waste them and then tell me there is nothing left over for those
who really need it.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@cs.uofs.edu         |  This space would be left intentionally blank
                              |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1776 alt.society.anarchy:698
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Inauguration Speech
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:36:24 GMT


In article <Bx96Es.BEE@wrs.com>, gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:
> In article 10259@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> >What makes you think libertarians don't care.  It's just that we prefer to
> >our caring with our own money, not somebody else's.
> 
> I'd state that as: we prefer to do our own caring voluntarily, not to
> have someone do it for us by force.
> ---
> Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4

Here both Mark and Rich have hit upon the problem that "statists",
"tax-and-spend types", or whatever you want to call them have with 
voluntary action.  It's so...  voluntary (read that "difficult to 
control").  Those who advocate taxation to support (amoung other 
things) "social programs" don't care that it's someone else's 
money.  They only care that some programs are "too important" to 
be left to the vageries of "voluntary action."  Having placed the 
morality of need above the rights of the individual to his or her 
own property they easily cast those of us concerned with nasty ol' 
property rights in the role of heartless villian.
-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--24HR Libertarian Party News (900)454-2378 [$1.95 a minute]--
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party            (800)272-1776 
          DON'T BLAME ME!         | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
       I voted Libertarian.       | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Fort Wayne, IN is Libertarian HOTSPOT!!!
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 23:19:59 GMT

Election Results for Allen County, IN:

Bush/Quayle	50,453
Clinton/Gore	36,524
Marrou/Lord	24,522 <===
Perot/Stockdale	   552
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
Security Classification: *** TOP SECRET ***
From: aa396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill Henley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Good news from the election!
Date: 10 Nov 1992 01:52:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


Like most other people with libertarian leanings, I was pretty
depressed about the result of the election, with Clinton 
winning (not that Bush was any great improvement, and Perot was
worst of all) and Marrou making a poor showing.  However, a
column by Neal Peirce which appeared in the Nov. 7 Cleveland
Plain Dealer cheered me up a bit.  Peirce is a syndicated
columnist specializing in state and local govt. issues and is
one of the most consistently anti-libertarian people I know of,
calling always and everywhere for higher taxes, more regulation,
bigger and more intrusive government.  (He also champions the
idea of reviving slavery in the U.S. under the guise of
compulsory "national service.")  
Peirce is himself depressed about the election, noting that
while Americans may have elected a "progressive" President
who believes in "affirmative government," they showed in
state and local ballot issues across the country that they
don't like politicians, don't trust government, and don't
favor higher taxes and bigger govt.  He cites the overwhelm-
ing victory of term limits everywhere they were on the ballot
and the votes in many places to reject tax hikes and to limit
the power of legislators to raise taxes (requiring a 2/3
legislative majority in Arizona and a vote of the people in
Colorado).  
(Peirce cites as rare victories for "his" side the defeat
of the Oregon anti-gay initiative and the approval of
abortion rights in a couple of states; but I imagine most
libertarians would also regard these as victories for "our"
side.)
Peirce concludes that voters are in a "surly" mood about
government, and that before he can hope to achieve his
"progressive" goals, Clinton will have a massive job of
"rebuilding Americans' faith in their governments."
Let us hope that Peirce is right about Americans' 
current attitudes -- and that any efforts of President
Greasy Willie to change those attitudes are a complete
failure.  This country wasn't created by and for people
who had "faith in government," but by and for people
who fiercely mistrusted government, knew it had far
greater power for harm than good, and weren't ready
to surrender their freedom in hopes that the state
would somehow solve all their problems and relieve
them of responsibility for their own lives.  

-- 
Bill Henley, Assistant Sysop, Cleveland Free-Net Science Fiction
& Fantasy SIG (aa396)
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Election results
Date: 10 Nov 1992 14:37:50 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) says:

>Did *any* Libertarians win?
>
Yes.  At least four candidates for the N.H. state legislature, and at least
one candidate for a county office in Texas.  There may have been others.
>
>Is the 260k vote total for Marrou final?
>
More or less.  The last total I heard was about 280K.
>
>Regarding Marrou's poor showing, I'd have to attribute it to Perot's strong
>showing.  Although diametrically opposed to the Libertarians on many issues, I
>think people who would have voted for Marrou voted instead for Perot because he
>was perceived as having a chance of winning.
>
>Then again, higher tallies for Libertarians in the past could simply be that
>they were considered good "none of the above" candidates.
>
The Perot theory seems to be the favored one.  Libertarian candidates set
records all across the country at every level except the presidency.  For
example, the LP had Senate candidates in 20 states, and those candidates
collectively received about 900,000 votes.  It seems defensible to state
that, in the absence of Perot, Marrou would have pulled in excess of one
million votes, and might have topped two million.




















>Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
>Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
>Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: spector@sumax.seattleu.edu (Mitchell Spector)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Strategy
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:02:34 GMT
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

In article <1d9rqbINNmjl@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>They should prepare a ballot proposition that changees Assembly, State
>Senate, and Congressional districts to multi seat districts. I would
>suggest that the districts have either 4 or 5 seats. The propostition
>should also include a provision for a Single Transferrable vote.

>If they did this many people like me would vote differently. For example
>there was a Religious right, a Democrat, and a Libertarian in my Assembly
>district. I voted for the Democrat. I would not have voted for the
>Libertarian no matter how much I liked him. I would have voted differently
>if my district had been combined with four or five others and there was a
>a single transferrable vote. I would have voted for all of the candidates
>in the order in which I actually preferred them, rather than the one I
>preferred of the two that might get elected.

   If there were, say, 4 seats, don't you think there would be several
Democrats and several Republicans running (perhaps 4 from each party)?

>Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer

--
Mitchell Spector
Seattle University
E-mail: spector@seattleu.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Keywords: Objectivism Libertarianism
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 12:10:15 GMT

In article <37515@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
}I've read a pamphlet by Peter Schwartz called "Libertarianism: The Perversion
}of Liberty." He has some good points with regards to unilateral disarmament,
}the Libertarian legal system, some Libs' support of NAMBLA, and the fact
}that the party contains so many self-contradictory viewpoints (anarchists,
}non-anarchists, etx.) They say that Libertarianism has degenerated into
}irrationality. Well, I don't personally know many Libertarians, but the
}one I do know was kind of suprised about the pamphlet. I wonder if some
}of the pamphlet' views weren't taken out of context, but again, Schwartz had 
}some good points. I urge Libertarians to check it out. It's avaiable from
}Second Renaissance Books.

Don't know about the disarmament, but Schwartz sure as hell isn't qualified to
judge polycentric legal systems.  This field of scholarship keeps growing and
seeming more plausible, albeit still problematic.  The Children's Rights
plank associated with NAMBLA was rammed through by its author, Rothbard, who
now denounces Hilary Clinton for supporting children's rights.  The anarchists
and minarchists disagree on whether it's possible to completely abolish the
state, nothing else.

}As far as Objectivism goes, I agree with some of it. The biggest problem
}I have is that Objectivism, supposedly a philosophy based on individualism,
}seems to require that its followers stamp out their own individuality and
}agree with everything Rand ever said. Hmmm, I don't think so. IMHO, 
}Objectivism's best points are as follows:

Objectivism doesn't require it, only some fools who think they're Objectivists
think it requires it.


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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1582 alt.politics.marrou:2072
From: brown@pollux (Daniel Brown)
Subject: Re: This Stupid "LaRouche is a Lib" Thing
Organization: University of Georgia
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:57:01 GMT

One reason this confusion exists today may be the assonance of "Marrou" and
"LaRouche".

-- 
Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu)

"If you weren't 50 feet tall, I'd punch you in the bosom!"
	--Larry Potter on _Get a Life!_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: This Stupid "LaRouche is a Lib" Thing
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:06:13 GMT

     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?
     (2) If he has never been one, how did the rumor start? (and please, no 
unsupported conspiracy theories)
     I need to know this so I can get back to people. If anyone has info, 
please post it -- I'm sure many other netters have the same questions.

                                        Steve
///
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: graff@hearty.Corp.Sun.COM (Mark Graff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Constitutional Question
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:30:37 GMT
Reply-To: graff@hearty.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: hearty.corp.sun.com

In article AxA@engin.umich.edu, positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>Alt.politics.libertarian probably isn't the appropriate newsgroup for
>this question, but I am posting it here because I have faith in the
>large number of Constitutional scholars here.
>
>What happens now if Clinton is shot?
>
... and theorizes:

> To recap, Bush would be President, Gore Vice President.
-----

This is what I think:

The result would vary a little bit depending on when it happened. The key events
in this scenario are 

	(1) The meeting of the electoral college to cast votes (Dec. 6th, I think)
	(2) The validation of the electoral votes by the President of the 
	    Senate (Dan Quayle), on Jan. 6th
	(3) The inauguration, Jan 20th.

Of course, after Jan 20, we get Gore immediately (Thank you John Tyler).

After Jan 6th and before noon on Jan 20th, the 25th ammendment spells out (don't
have a copy handy but this is my recollection) that Gore would be sworn in
on the 20th as President.

Between now and Dec. 6th we are more vulnerable. The Constitution is silent
on this point. However, what would probably happen is that the Democratic
National Committee would meet to appoint a new "nominee"--presumably Gore.
The electors would then be lobbied to vote for the Demo's choice. However,
no one can force them to vote in a particular way, so it would be very
dicey.

By the way, history junkies might be interested to know that we've come
pretty close to having a President-elect assasinated. In late February
of 1933 (I forget the exact date), F.D.R. was in a parade in Miami and
was shot at by would-be assasins. They missed him, but hit and killed
Anton Cermak, then mayor of Chicago. I have always wondered what Cermak
was doing in a parade in Miami...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian