HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: RETRACTION: Fort Wayne, IN is Libertarian HOTSPOT!!!
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:34:50 GMT

feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:

>Election Results for Allen County, IN:

>Bush/Quayle	50,453
>Clinton/Gore	36,524
>Marrou/Lord	24,522 <===
>Perot/Stockdale	   552

The newspaper screwed up. This should have been

>Bush/Quayle	 50,453
>Clinton/Gore	 36,524
>Perot/Stockdale 24,522 <===
>Marrou/Lord	    552


Too bad!
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
Security Classification: *** TOP SECRET ***
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:31:59 GMT


>In article <1992Nov4.021824.15780@vela.acs.oakland.edu> w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:

>>And I think individual liberties (the ones this individual values, anyway) and
>>free market economics are also (at best) tradeoffables (like all the Iron Laws
>>of Economics).
>>

In article <37570@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

>They are not "tradeoffables", they are identical. Capitalism can only
>thrive under a system of pirvate property rights and individual liberties.
>

I assert that individual liberties can only thrive where the value of
individuals transcends (infinitely exceeds) the value of commodities.

What do you think of my other assertion that "liberty" and "equality" are not
tradeoffables, but identical?

My definition of liberty:

One's options are not determined by other persons.


My definition of equality:

No person need be bound to a social hierarchy.



Both rooted in independence, of course.  But there's gotta be a way to achieve
that independence, other than that very hostile place known as the business
world.  There just gotta be.  Obviously trying to harness enterprise into the
service of social justice can't work.  Maybe the Harvard Economists can find
that subtle subtle loophole in the fabric of Natural Law...

Is that Parvin guy still active on alt.politics.libertarian?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Lee    w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu

Don't blame me, I didn't vote!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Subject: Re: the most equitable economic system
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 18:28:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.163611.25075@bradley.bradley.edu> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
[...]
>It sounds like an admirable goal, but how is this different?  People can do
>all of these things now.  If it's voluntary, then there's no reason why it
>can't now be done.  After all, communes exist today with that ideal in
>mind.  Your idea sounds good, but it strikes me as sort of a non-idea since
>there's no real way to do anything about it.  

Well, actually, that's not true everywhere.  Many laws exist that, for example,
prohibit more than "n" unrelated, unmarried people from living together under
the same roof.

In San Francisco,

>We must always remember that a voluntary system suggests that not only do
>we have the choice to participate, but also to not participate, and that is
>where capitalism is most heavily criticised.  I have a loaf of bread, you
>don't, you're starving, and I won't sell it to you.  If I WANT to give it
>to you or sell it to you, then everything is fine.  But if not, then you
>steal it, or you get guns or other people with guns to take it away from
>me.  People criticise libertarianism for being social Darwinism, but
>without a government to protect the free market mechanisms, society
>descends into REAL Darwinism...survival of the fittest and such, and then
>we're all screwed.  At the same time, we must always be vigilant to balance
>the government against the rights of the individual.  This does not
>preclude your idea of an economic system.  However, it does protect those
>who wish not to participate in it.

NOT!!!  Food Not Bombs gives free street feeds in SF and Berkeley and gets
hassled all the time for it.

Here in Seattle there are many merchants who would prohibit donating to
panhandlers if they could get away with it.

The government will try to regard *every* interaction between human
beings as a *transaction* to be regulated, taxed, or prohibited, if it can.

Hence, there are many instances where, so to speak, you can't *not* make
money (or *not* participate in the economic system) and still stay out of
trouble.  So much for freedom of choice in the capitalist paradise.
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
 Nostalgic conservatives will soon be referring to the Bush Era as
 "those Halcion days of yesteryear".
From: howard@hasse.hal.com (Howard Gayle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Public Goods that libertarians acknowledge.
Date: 10 Nov 1992 14:18:08 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc., Campbell, California
Reply-To: howard@hal.com (Howard Gayle)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hasse.hal.com
In-reply-to: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)

In article <1992Nov8.111634.22369@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie (Tim Starr) writes:
>However, the criteria for public goods are nonexcludability, meaning that
>none can be excluded from receiving the benefits, and the "free-rider"
>principle, that some can receive the benefits without having to pay their
>"fair" share.

My favorite example of a public good is informed voting.  Being
a public good, it is underproduced.
--
Howard Gayle
HAL Computer Systems, Inc.
1315 Dell Avenue
Campbell, California 95008
USA
howard@hal.com
Phone: +1 408 379 7000 extension 1080
FAX  : +1 408 379 5022
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Question: drug non-control
Keywords: drug control
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: us
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 12:58:03 GMT

In article <3bj1zqd@rpi.edu> ash@acm.rpi.edu (Arthur Hyun) writes:
}I have a question about the Libertarian position on drug laws.
}
}I understand the rationalle behind abolition of most control laws, and
}by my understanding, it would seem that the abolition of drug laws would
}make drugs cheaper and of higher quality.  Wouldn't this encourage more
}people to experiment with narcotics and therefore become addicted?

Imagine that cigarettes got much cheaper (free, even), higher quality, and
more potent.  Would you start smoking?

Imagine that everclear was free and tasted great.  Would you start being an
alcoholic?

Surveys show that only 5% of those people who haven't tried prohibited drugs
would if they were legal.  Drug prohibition is a price support program that
reduces quality and increases potency, thus creating high incentives for
the intense marketing of expensive, dangerous products.  When was the last
time you saw an alcohol pusher at a schoolyard?

Study of alcohol prohibition shows that alcholism went up during it, and
came back down afterwards, along with violent crime (including wifebeating,
which is significant, because prohibitionists argued that husbands would
spend more time at home with their wives instead of at saloons).

Crack and heroin wouldn't even be marketed on a free market because they
wouldn't be able to compete with powder cocaine and morphine or opium poppies.
And hemp would be preferred to these.


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:1749 alt.society.anarchy:691
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:58:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Nov4.021824.15780@vela.acs.oakland.edu> w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
>Suppose it's true (I don't believe so, but most marketists seem to) that the
>Soviet economy was killed (in large part) by too much job security, i.e. people
>gotta be lean and hungry and fearful of immanent poverty to be motivated.  If
>that theory is true, then there's a built in limit on how prosperous capitalism
>can make the masses.  The American economy is particularly ingenious at
>conversion of luxuries into necessities, gentrification of housing and other
>ways to speed up the treadmill and maintain an economically desperate
>population in spite of burgeoning GNP.  And people who have the income to more
>than keep up with the poverty level tend to have a career treadmill that
>requires "up or out".

The Soviet Unions economy was inherently flawed--the government tries to 
decide for everyone how much they want and need, and there is no profit
motive. No economy can survive these.

The "economically desperate population" grows because of social welfare
programs (i.e. why work?), not capitalism.

>And I think individual liberties (the ones this individual values, anyway) and
>free market economics are also (at best) tradeoffables (like all the Iron Laws
>of Economics).
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Walter Lee    w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
>
>Keep the Aspidistra Flying!

They are not "tradeoffables", they are identical. Capitalism can only
thrive under a system of pirvate property rights and individual liberties.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.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 12:43:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.195002.7742@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
}
}As far as the LP is concerned, it is a political party, not a philosophical
}movement.  If the Objectivists would utilize it properly, as the political arm 
}of an intellectual movement, they would have actually gotten somewhere instead 
}of ranting about Immanuel Kant on and on and on until they sound like the 
}pathetic ivory tower idiot-intellectuals they are.  Do you think an essay on
}Immanuel Kant is going to keep Issue 5 from winning in Ohio?  Do you think a 
}lengthy discussion of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy is going to free us all 
}from NSA detention camps when it comes to that?

According to Joan Kennedy Taylor, a former member of Rand's inner circle,
Rand once told her that she considered the LP to be the legitimate political
expression of the objectivist ethic.


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.libertarian
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:38:59 GMT

In article <37571@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

...

>no gains for the rest of the world, plus no capital accumulation, which
>is the source of production. In short, you advocate poverty for all,

...

>Property ownership is decided, in a free society, by those who have *worked*
>and saved up enough money to buy it. Land in general falls under this

...

So which is it, Jim?  Capital accumulation, or *work*?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Lee    w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu

Don't blame me, I didn't vote!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1599 alt.society.anarchy:660
From: larry@labrador.fishkill.ibm.com (Larry Pieniazek)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Strategy
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 16:26:25 GMT
Reply-To: lar@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: Ya, Right! 

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

[ what libertarians should do to get more power in the future ]

> 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.
> 

Please pardon my ignorance, can you elaborate more on what a Single
Transferrable vote is? Is this the "New Hampshire" model ??

Thanks!

> There are probably enough libertarians in the State of California to get a
> Multi-seat District Single Transferrable Initiative on the ballot. If they
> publicised it well it would have a good chance of passing. This could be
> done by the next Congressional election in 1994 and be the way of the
> voting for the Presidential in 1996.
> 
> Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer

-Lar

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','
`,` Democrat:    Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,`
`,` Republican:  Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems.  `,`
`,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems.        `,`
',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','

Lord/Williams in '96

#include <std_disclaim.h>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.individualsim
From: dev@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: That Supreme Court income tax ruling
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:42:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

weekslb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) once wrote: 
> Could somebody out there please send me a copy of the Supreme Court
> ruling recently posted, regarding the income tax and evasion thereof.
> I forgot to save it, and when I went back today to get it, it was gone
> from the spool... thanks.

Didn't anybody save that article? Just in case my request isn't clear,
and from the couple kind responses I've gotten, it isn't... I'm
talking about the complete U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion
recently posted, regarding a man appealing his conviction. He worked
for an airline (?) and was led to believe that wages are not income,
as taught in some seminars. The Court dismissed those arguments as
frivolous, but remanded the case to a lower court on a technical
detail. Thanks to anybody who can send me a copy, or point me to an
archive...

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth.
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty."
-------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"The truly ignorant in our society are those people who would throw
 away the parts of the Constitution they find inconvenient."
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Public Goods that libertarians acknowledge.
Date: 6 Nov 1992 16:02:27 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Nov6.100313.29052@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>Well, we can ask David if necessary, but I think his point in MoF was to
>argue principles first, utility second, because there are so few true public
>goods.

I'd like to get these on the table.  Would you mind listing or categorizing
the public goods that you accept and that David Friedman accepts in 
"The Machinery of Freedom"?

Others are also welcome to list public goods, though I would appreciate if
you would state whether you consider them consonant with libertarianism.

Mike Huben

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest."  Denis Diderot in "Dithrambe sur la fete de rois".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:36:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.133255.49840@ccvax.ucd.ie>, x551_003@ccvax.ucd.ie writes:
>
>They were not so the soviet union was just another form of class society, you
>could call it state capitalism if you liked.  The promotion of the soviet
>ruling class like any other was not on the basis that they were the brightest
>and best in society.  Rather it was a product of two factors
>1) A willingness to stab other people in the back, and make gains at their
>expense.
>2) Being 'lucky' enough to be in a position where you could make use of (1).
>
>There was of course another way too which is also common to western class
>society
>.....be the offspring of somebody who is already in a position of power.
>

And what demographic group is producing the bulk of the new Russian
"entrepreneurial class"?

Military officers!

>All in all the soviet union had far more in common with capitalism
>then anarchism.  Perhaps it actually demonstrated how capitalism doesnt work!
>

It demonstrated that you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Lee    w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu

Don't blame me, I didn't vote!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: O & L (correction)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:38:49 GMT

>In article <1992Nov5.213127.14257@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:

>> Libertarianism is not the 'why', it's the 'how'.  This is what makes the
>> Objectivists' comments so ridiculous:  The LP does not even pretend to be
>> a political movement.

*CORRECTION*  I meant, "The LP does not even pretend to be a _philosophical_
movement."  Sorry for any confusion this mistake may have caused.

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Clinton's Gun Grab and 100,000 man National Police Corp.
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:06:29 GMT

Of all the "promises" Clinton made in his "Putting People First"
platform,  the most troubling ones to  me remain: 

- His new 100,000 man National Police Corp (NPC) which will (in his words)
"fight a real war on drugs".  (NPC rhymes with KGB doesn't it?)  

- Outlawing of all semi-automatic weapons (Ok,  the actual Clinton text
really says "assault rifles",  but we all know that's a crock term that
can be arbitrarily applied to any semi-automatic at a politician's whim.)

- "Limiting access"  to all "multi-round" clips.

- Passage of the Brady Bill.

I scanned an article in the WSJ that said the NRA made some gains in
getting its candidates elected to Congress.  It will be "interesting"
to see if they can contain the last three Clinton "promises" from being
translated into reality. Unfortunately,  the first one (the NCP) will
probably be enacted with few objections whatsoever.  And it will probably
be an entrenched bureacracy by the end of 4 years.

Clinton's position on these issues,  and the Republicans' total  lack of
response to them has (I think) finally pushed me, a die-hard Reaganite,
over into the Libertarian camp. If Clinton makes good on all these
promises and the "moderate" Republicans take the party back over (which
they are threatening to do) I think Libertarians can  expect to live
long and perhans even prosper under a Clinton regime. 
Libertarian-oriented Reganites like me have no other place to go (for 
now).  It's somewhat of a silver lining in an otherwise dark cloud on
the horizon. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Drude - (drudetb@infonode.ingr.com) | Opinions, when they occur, are 
					| not my employers. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: election results
Keywords: ??
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:27:48 GMT
Distribution: na


Quick question---I understand that Marrou got .278% of the popular vote.

Is this correct?
How does this compare with previous Libertarian campaigns?

Response through E-mail, please, I don't follow this net regularly.

Thanks!!
steve soar
ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jallen@athena.mit.edu
Subject: Line item veto - for us!
Organization: MIT Athena
	<1992Nov3.215202.13460@EE.Stanford.EDU> <11251@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:18:46 GMT

In article <11251@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

   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.

Well put!

What percentage of the federal budget goes to "artists"?  I'd like to
line item veto this thing on my next tax return.  Maybe I'll find an
expenditure that I actually think is worthwhile, but the others I'd
like to leave out that percentage of the money and say if the
president didn't get to line item veto these things, I will.

------- Joe --------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1844 alt.politics.marrou:2248
From: 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Nevada Libertarians come close
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:50:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian



It looks like there probably will be an investigation of the Nevada
vote counting, according to Aarron Starr in Ventura County, California.
There is suspicion about the high number of non-liberatarian
absentee votes.   Plus there is supposed to be a case of
29 absentee voters being registered at a vacant lot.
Homeless people ?
-
Aarron also mentions there was a case of a voter in Los Angeles who
registered Libertarian, and the copunty called the voter to ask if she was "serious" about being thusly registered.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:39:07 -0500 
From: Andrew Lewis Tepper <at15+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Was Marx right?

I'm hoping that someone familliar with Marx's theories can respond:

  As we all know, government spending as a % of GNP is at an all time
high. (Although Federal gov't spending is not - 1990 it was 23%, 1984 it
was 26%) According to Andre Marrou, taxes at all levels equal 47% of
GNP. I assume that if spending at all levels reaches 100% we will by
definition be a socialist country. I once read an article describing
Marx's theory that there are four stages of economies: Barter(wrong
word), Capitalist, Socialist, and Communist. I have the following
questions:

1) What is the difference between Socialist and Communist. (Marx's
definitions - I don't care what the old USSR called themselves.)

2) How does a (true) communist system deal with someone who simply wants
more toys than everyone else? 

3) What is the word for that first stage of economy, and when did
society move from that stage to capitolism?

4) Was Marx right? If you look at the positions that the Republican
party took in the late '60s, they look quite Libertarian (fiscally). Now
the Republicans seem to be heading straight toward socialism, lead only
by the Democrats. Also, consider last Tuesday's election: Regardless of
what Clinton actually does, he was elected based on promises of
increased socialism. 

Andy

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian