HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:46:30 GMT

In article <lisg0fINN27u@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>Here is the mistake made by most Liberatarians. The value placed on the
>US Dollar is influenced by many factors, mostly the ability to obtain
>goods or services with it. While it is true that the bureaucrats of
>Washington DC have the greatest opportunity to temporarily influence
>this value, the greatest influence remains the ability to obtain goods
>or services with that dollar.
>[...]
>The dollar is simply a commodity. Like gold or pork bellies. It's value
>will remain relative to other commodities, regardless of any
>Liberatarian government dictum. All discussion about the various merits
>of binding the value of the dollar to any commodity are rendered void
>by this simple economic truth.

If currency is a commodity, then the US government is the producer of that
commodity (since the US government can always produce more by increasing the
money supply -- in effect, printing more).

Why not, then, allow others to produce the same commodity in the same fashion?
Today that's called counterfeiting; however, if dollars are indeed a commodity,
that should not be a problem.

After all, there's no prohibition on mining more gold or raising more pigs.

Methinks your analogy is a bit inaccurate.

                                           James Parker
                                           jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:08:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.175350.24565@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
}	As for the woman's concerns being trivial, I hope thats not the
}reason, especially since the platform does tend to take an antogonistic
}position on lots of woman's issues.  

Like what?

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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Organization: University of North Carolina
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:22:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.190710.629039@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>A newspaper article I read recently had as a thesis the idea that while
>Libertarians as a party have fairly insignificant ballot-box totals, as
>a movement they have had a strong effect on policy.
>
>They mentioned the recent (and highly successful) term limits crusade,
>saying that prominent libertarians donated cash to term limits
>initiative promoters, and libertarian activists gave support.
>
>The next project?  School vouchers.  Which leads me to my questions:
>
>1) Is there any truth to the contention that the LP, or libertarians in
>general, are supportive of term limits and school vouchers?
>
>2) Are these small-l libertarian proposals?
>
>As far as I can see, term-limits is a way of restricting who can run for
>office and who citizens can vote for.  I can't see this as a libertarian
>proposal.  This "stop me before I vote again" thing is profoundly
>anti-liberty, IMHO.  The law should step in and prevent people for
>voting for an incumbent?
>
>And school vouchers is a way of destroying private schools as an
>institution by making them semi-public.  Really, now, once this voucher
>system becomes law, the next step is to say that a private school must
>bow down to the government in the following zillion ways before they can
>accept vouchers.
>
>Don't believe me?  Look at what the U.S. government does to so-called
>"Private" colleges.  If any student attending a private college gets a
>government grant, that college must abide by any number of federal laws.
>
>School vouchers are a conservative, elitist, populist proposal -- not a
>libertarian one.  What's going on here?
>
>-- 
>***************** INTERNET: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.EDU ********************

	I think they depend.
Term Limits is an attempt to revitilize voting.  I don't know what this
has to do with LP anymore then anyother party.  Frankly I see this as an
issue, where people feel they've lost control of congress; but collectly
don't hate their congressman.  I dilemma.  It doesn't strike as
Libertarian or anti-libertarian; just pro-democratic in a practical sense
and anti-democratic in a theoretical one.
	As for vouchers.  If I remember correctly that's part of the
platform as an interm measure.  Though seeing as Reagan was big on this
issue, I think he deserves the credit for its catching on.  And Bush
deserves the blame for it not being law by now, for not pushing it.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Outnumbered?
Organization: Sometimes
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:08:09 GMT

Just some food for thought:

According to a radio talk show host in Philadelphia, the number of federal,
state, and local government employees is now larger than the number of
factory workers in the United States. Isn't OPIC wonderful?

-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:24:29 GMT

In article <a0R=Lv_@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
}In article <1992Dec13.022756.3194@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
}>	Well on that you and I agree completly.  I think the gold standard
}>is really not worth much.  It was useful in ancient times, because gold
}>was relativly rare and highly prized.  In modern times, who really needs
}>gold for anything.  The best thing we could do is sell of all that
}>worthless garbage in Fort Knox.

This "gold standard-as-ancient relic" argument stems from Keynesian anti-
laissez-faire banking theory.  Worthless?  Then please hand over any that
you may possess to me.  E-mail me for the address to send it to.

}>	Givin all this though can you think of a good commidity for the
}>modern world?
}>
}
}Look at the free market, pal, look at the free market. It doesn't really
}matter what gold is *used* for, what matters is that there is a demand
}for it, and that there is a supply of it. The most useless thing in the
}world has value if people want it and people can supply it. Gold is a
}good store of value because it's durable, doesn't rot, decay, or dissolve,
}and is relatively rare.

And its highly malleable and a good electrical conductor, shiny, dense...
We had a debate about free banking monetary standards over on alt.individual-
sim a few months back, and the only superior possibility to gold that anyone
hypothesized was an indexed currency which I still don't quite understand.
Ask Tony Cox about it, it was his idea.

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: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Gold v. Oil: Backed Currency
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:31:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.215336.4430@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
|> >circulation should not change (in theory).  A better analogy to what the
|> >Fed does would be to have the board of directors print up extra stock and keep 
|> >it for themselves.
|> >
|> >Mr. Grinch
|> 
|> 	They can do this too.  that's what happens in a typical stock split.
|> 
|> --JMB
|> 

Bzzzt -- thanks for playing.  In a typical stock split, the owners of
record get the new shares, not the board of directors.

A slightly better analogy to what the fed does is: the board of
directors prints extra stock and lends it to their friends with
very favorable rates -- the federal reserve lends it to the banks.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:06:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.022756.3194@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>	Well on that you and I agree completly.  I think the gold standard
>is really not worth much.  It was useful in ancient times, because gold
>was relativly rare and highly prized.  In modern times, who really needs
>gold for anything.  The best thing we could do is sell of all that
>worthless garbage in Fort Knox.
>	Givin all this though can you think of a good commidity for the
>modern world?
>

gold will still work fine. it doesn't have to be of any particular
value -- it is just a placeholder. it just so happens that gold is
always of value because it is so sought after. it is virtually indestructible,
has industrial value, and most importantly, it is beautiful.

the only purpose of currency, IMO, should be to facilitate the exchange
of goods and services. i.e., if i grow corn, and i want my teeth fixed,
i can use currency so that i can get my teeth fixed even if my dentist
doesn't eat corn. the only purpose of gold is to keep the government
from deciding it wants to print more money.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Hey, Tim Starr
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:58:17 GMT

In article <1gihu0INNhi3@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}Here's a guy that lacks your pollyana view that everything will magically
}be all right if only we all adopt libertarianism.

What do you know, Huben's misrepresenting me on yet another thread!  For a
guy that claims he's too busy to quote posts he responds to, he sure does
get around!

}So let's see.  You lead off with an ad-hominem, and then try to wiggle out by
}pointing to a book.  Just like a bible thumper declaring that he has no
}time to throw pearles before swine: read the bible.  Sorry, Tim, that's
}not the path to true greatness.  Why don't you try enlightening us instead.

Yes, it was an ad hominem, but a circumstantial one I think justifed.  And
I've no obligation to prove a thing to you; I've got better things to do
than attempt to enligten one who seems unwilling to participate in good
faith.  You can remain in tutelage for all I care.

}Oh yea, and for reference, why not tell me whether you are a minarchist or
}anarchist.

Undecided.

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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand(What yo gonna do?) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:11:48 +0000

In article <92347.120042REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
            REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU writes:

>   Each of us should take the responsibility of making our own decisions.
>Case in point...  Why on Earth would the US need trade sanctions on any
>country?  If enough people are willing to embargo a country, it is
>effectively embargoed - provided we live by our convictions.

Trade sanctions (imposed by government) are to force those people who
don't want the sanctions to obey the ones who do.  In one way, this
could be justified *if* you think that the majority is always right (I
don't), because the economic warfare (seige, effectively) can be broken
by just a few self-centered individuals.

>   But no, Americans scream and cry for government to pass a law telling
>them to do something they already know they should be doing.  Americans
>seem to need a Law telling them not to ingest cocaine, etc.  Next, there
>will be a Law against drinking gasoline!   But I digress...

It's not just Americans - Brits are as bad...

>
>   Pick your convictions.
>   Stick by them.
>   Let others do the same.

Hear, hear!  We don't need no steenking laws...

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: libertarian societies
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:28:11 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36
Keywords: libertarian, societies, somalia

In article <1992Dec16.023939.21341@fx.com> raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael)
cites from _The Enterprise of Law_ by Bruce Benson, but without showing
how these citations relate to my claims:

>1) there are currently more private than public police in the US.
>(this includes a whole bunch of building security guards as well as
>more traditional police forces...)

Thanks for including the caveat.  (Does it include watchdogs also?  :-)
Please tell me how many cities or towns have chosen to privatize their police
forces.

>2) there are several states in the US with more private than public fire
> departments. Some private US fire departments are volunteer and raise
> funds through bake sales instead of property taxes, while others are 
> private companies that charge variable fees for services rendered.

There are many communities which are not large enough to provide economic
support for a professional fire department.  In those communities, it makes
sense to use volunteers, because adequate salaried staff to fight even small
fires is expensive.

> Private fire departments have been responsible for many fire-fighting
> innovations.

I guess people don't turn off their brains when they work for private
industry.  However, there's also a long history of innovations from
public departments as well.

> Where there are private fire companies, one can either
> contract for their services on a yearly basis or as needed;

Arson, while sometimes identifiable, is usually untraceable.  There is
a risk that (like any protection racket) profits will try to be increased
by starting fires to create an illusion of need.  And if there is competition,
extra fires for your competitor will cause extra expenses, resulting in
a competitive advantage.  These are basic conflicts of interest that are
not present in free volunteer and municipal departments.

> these provide better service at a lower cost than public fire departments

Oh? I'd like to hear what the numbers are an where they come from.  I strongly
doubt that the numbers are commensurate.

> and the cost of a yearly fire-prevention contract is less than the money
> you save on your home insurance bills by getting one.

Yes, but how low are the insurance bills of those who live in comparable
communities with public fire departments?  Surely you don't think insurance
companies (or their clients) are so stupid as to use the same rate on a house
in a community with a public fire department as on a house which doesn't
have a fire fighting contract in a community with a private department.

Mike Huben

"Historians will have to face the fact that natural selection determined the
evolution of cultures in the same manner as it did that of species."
Konrad Lorenz in "On Agression" 1966.
From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian enclaves overseas?
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:22:06 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

mece3d@uh.jetson.edu (Chris Struble) writes:

[On which country to pick for the world's first free libertarian
society...]

How about Scotland?

lessee...

>Some criteria would include:

>1.  Population - the smaller the better, with a few million at most.

5 million? Looks good so far.....

>2.  Infrastructure - should have a well-developed communication and 
>     transportation system

well some of us can email the world, we got phones, TV's, trains and
that kinda stuff..

, and a fairly well-educated populace

Universities? We got 'em. Hell some of 'em are probably amongst the
oldest in the world. And inventive? Well, half the modern world was
invented by scotsmen.


>that speaks English, if possible.

Well, with an accent. But we spell better than 'murricans :-)

>3.  Immigration Policy - it should be possible for an outsider to become
>a 
>     citizen or set up in the country fairly easily.

Yeah. Just as well really since there are more Scots outside of Scotland
than inside :-)

>4.  Political Freedom - should have a fairly stable democratic government.

Well, yeah. The real drawback is that it's the *English* guvmint. Still,
a lotta the folks here ain't keen on that so we're ripe for liberation....

>5.  Economic Freedom - should be as few restrictions on business as
>possible.

Yeah. Probly ok.

>6.  Money Policy - should be possible to trade foreign currency easily.

Just go to the bank and they'll sell you some. I usually get my Dollars
(to buy US CD's) at a travel shop.

>7.  Gun laws - is it possible to legally own a gun in the country?

Damn. we gotta strike there. No guns. It's even illegal to carry a knife.

Y'all are welcome though. The real problem is the weather :-)


>| Christian Struble    | Department of Mechanical Engineering         |

FoFP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No! (Was: Re: Views? :)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:28:23 GMT

In article <parvin1.724177328@husc11> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
}3) Having a truly stable currency is best achieved by a conservative Fed that
}doesn't try to manipulate the real interest rate.

That's funny, Hong Kong has no central bank, yet I understand its currency
has been fairly stable.  And this whole line of argument is being refuted by
the new research on the history of free banking being led by Kevin Dowd,
Lawrence White, George Selgin, and other Austrian economists.

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: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:42:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.173017.21527@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>
[stuff deleted for bandwidth]
>
>btw, we are still waiting for the person (i believe it was mr. huben) to respond
>to my response to his claim that a backed currency over-values the 
>commodity used to back it. that is really the important issue.
>
>--
>charles

I think that backing a currency is a useful function of a commodity--it
makes life more secure than having a currency backed by a government's
promise. Therefore, a commodity being more valuable because it's backing
a currency is just a fact rather than a problem.

Nancy Lebovitz
nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Wither the gold standard (was: Re: Views? :)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:59:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.022923.20170@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.011406.3695@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>if the US government says that an ounce of gold is worth $35, it *will*
>>always be that way. but if $35 buys X amount of stuff, and somewhere
>>else you can get 2X amount of stuff for one ounce of gold, nobody
>>will accept US dollars as currency. so within the US you are fine.
>>but outside the US you are in trouble. and this is relevant because
>>of the shrinking percentage of the world market that is the US market.
>
>To my mind, the only way a government can say "an ounce of gold
>is worth $35" (or shekels, lira, slobotniks...) is if it
>accompanies this with a dual offer:
>
>1. Bring $35 in cash to the treasury office, and we'll give you
>   an ounce of gold.
>
>2. Bring an ounce of gold to the treasury office, and we'll give
>   you $35 in cash.
>
>Both of these offers must be valid in perpetuity. They must be
>valid for *anyone* who wants to make the exchange, of whatever
>citizenship.

i am pretty sure that all of the above is implicit in the concept
of a gold standard as the LP wants.

>IF the gov't does this, the problems you describe won't happen.
>Any merchant will know that he can exchange gold for cash at the
>fixed rate, so $1 will just be a more convenient way of having
>1/35 of an ounce of gold.

i never denied this (see above, i said "it *will* always be that way").
the problem is price instability. if the value of gold goes up compared
to dollars, all prices go down. and vice versa. that is the problem,
especially considering who has the power to control gold's value

$1 will be a more convenient way of having 1/35 ounce of gold, fine.
but if the real world market decides that what americans are willing
to sell for $1 can be had elsewhere for 1/70 an ounce of gold (since
non-americans care about gold, not our currency, just as
we don't care about theirs) then one of two things will happen: american
prices halve; or american producers make no sales.

>This will be no different in a foreign country.If gold is more
>valuable in Slobovia than in the US, than so will dollars be,
>because dollars are defined in terms of gold.

right, which is more loss of monetary policy control. who decides
what gold is worth in Slobovia? the Slobovians and whoever digs
up the gold. they also, therefore, determine the price and value
of US goods.

>Of course, the government can only do this if it has enough gold
>reserves to cover all the currency in circulation.

which is part of the problem.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)