HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@bistro.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Libertarian myths.
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:39:00 GMT

Response to article <192vihINN4da@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben):

I disagree with almost everything Mike wrote in hist post, although he makes strong
points.  One of his statement I'll comment on is the following:
>
>Here's another allusion to the most prevalent libertarian myth: that the
>government is out to coerce you by force into paying taxes.  This myth
>totally ignores the contractual nature of the relationship between citizen
>and state.  The contract is published: read the laws.  If you want to
>terminate the contract, take citizenship in another country.
>
>For example, if you were born in an apartment with an indefinite lease, and
>when you were grown, your parents moved out leaving you as sole occupant,
>you wouldn't expect to live there for free, would you?  A landlord would kick
>you out: the US government hasn't that choice (it would be unconstitutional)
>and thus needs other ways of collecting.

I didn't sign this social contract.  The underlying assumption of
Mike's argument is that the government is my landlord.  In other words, rather 
than the government being responsible to the people the people should be 
responsible to the government.  I am grateful to live in this country which,
even with it's flaws, seems like the best place in the world to live.  This
does not imply that I should sit back and accept being tax at an unreasonably
high level.  

The government is in fact coercing me into paying taxes because I don't agree
with how the money is being spent (I think it's being flushed down the toilet) 
and I don't believe that the government is acting in the best interest of the
citizens of this country.  The government spends according to political 
convenience (using the porkbarrel method).  But, I shouldn't be forced to leave this
country just because the government sucks.  The government should leave.  This
is my country not the government's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes)
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 92 02:18:32 GMT

dab@asylum.UUCP (Dave Bridgham) writes:
>One drawback I see of a sales tax only system is that it would provide
>a tremendous incentive to avoid it.  In other words, quite a boost to
>the underground economy.  Which means that the government has to
>prevent this.  I'm somewhat fearful of what measures they might find.

A valid point.

>Property taxes seem grossly unfair to a few segments of the
>population.  As one poster put it, "you have to keep running to stay
>even".  You lose your property if you leave the system either
>voluntarily (retire or just opt to do your own thing apart from the
>system) or involuntarily (lose your job).

I don't see why this is "bad".  If the goal is to make the society
a more prosperous one, thereby helping individuals towards freedom,
then one should not retire too "early" in life (ie one should be
"productive" for a "reasonable" amount of time).  Retiring implies
that you have worked long enough to have enough money to stop working
for at least a few years, so you can probably afford to continue
paying property taxes.

Note I'm not agreeing that property taxes *alone* are the best way
to go.  It seems to me that a very simple linear combination of
property and income taxes is probably a good compromise.

-- 
The primary goal of science is to describe whatever scientists see as being
in need of description.

Wayne Hayes     INTERNET: wayne@csri.utoronto.ca        CompuServe: 72401,3525
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about Libertarian idealogy
Date: 13 Sep 92 00:09:45 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep12.010721.3038@leland.Stanford.EDU>, bohnert@leland.Stanford.EDU (matthew bohnert) writes:
> Is there some Libertarian who
> can explain to me why subsidized mass transit is a bad thing?

Yes. Where is the money to subsidize it going to come from? That's the one
the key issues for libertarians - any time you give money to a project, no
matter how deserving, it has to come from somewhere. And once you establish
a pattern of giving away money to "deserving" projects, it becomes a very
difficult habit to break.

> But what do you
> do with money once a PRICELESS natural resource has been adulterated?

A basic disagreement - there is nothing tangible that is PRICELESS. It's an
emotional appeal that does much harm - when you categorize something as
priceless, you make it impossible to distinguish differing levels of
damage to such a resource.

Take your example of the local drinking supply being contaminated - the price
for that is whatever it takes to replace it. Take as an example the town I
live in; the water table was contaminated by a dye factory. The price to be
paid is replacing the water supply for well-owners. In this state, there is
water available from other systems, so the price isn't all that high.

If we were to say that the water table was priceless, we would be unable
to distinguish between the level of contamination that took place, and doing
the same in another area where other sources of water were not available. Or
doing so to such a large degree that the overall environment was affected.
(Current levels are such that drinking contaminated water would increase
your chances of getting cancer by some small amount - but overall environment
changes are limited to the concrete cap placed on top of the dump site).

Again, nothing is priceless. Claiming such prevents rational discussion.
Things may be very expensive, more than you can afford, but they aren't
priceless.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: thomasc@athena.mit.edu (Thomas Wallace Colthurst)
Subject: Re: Better a libertarian in Hell than a taxpayer in Heaven.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:49:20 GMT

In article <18qvcfINN11s@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
|> 
|> There are alot of ways that my response could be useful (assuming that your
|> judgment as flammage is rhetorical.)
|> 
|> 1) Criticism could shame certain posters into writing more thoughtfully.
|>    I can see that hasn't worked for you yet.
|> 
|> 2) It might keep undecided people from accepting specious libertarian
|>    arguments.
|> 
|> 3) It might force explication of assumptions which could actually make sense
|>    of certain libertarian points of view.
|> 
|> As a matter of fact, your posting looks kind of useless.  All you did was
|> ignore what I said and say "go away".
|> 
|> Mike Huben
|> 
|> "... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make
|> themselves artificially stupid."  Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge".

I invite everyone to examine Mike Huben's original "Better a libertarian in
Hell ..." article.  It contains, to wit:

(1) A statement of being feed-up with and being in contempt of the postings
    in this newsgroup.

(2) A brief summary of one such posting, with its author declared a "twit"
    and "baby."

(3) A brief summary of another posting which advocated the abolition of 
    property taxes, followed by the statement "Property IS part of the
    economic system, a non-monetary component."  No attempt to relate
    this fact to the discussion at hand is made, but the posting author
    is accused of ignoring the facts.

(4) A request for justification of another posting.  A sample case-scenario
    which might render such a justification problematic.  A last-minute
    realization of a way around the problem presented by the case-scenario.

(5) An accusation of "class interest" by most libertarians.

(6) An expression of relief to the effect that a certain minority group
    has not yet started posting to this newsgroup.

(7) His name.

(8) An unoriginal adaptation of a Victor Hugo quote.

Stereotypical remarks or personal remarks such as found in (1), (2), (3),
(5) and (6) are usually considered to be detrimental to debate.  Only (3) and
(4) could be considered criticism under the most liberal of 
interpretations, and would not satisfy his criterion 1), 2) or 3) in
any case.

This group invites discussion and constructive criticism, and looks forward
to the day when Mr. Huben is able to provide such.

-Thomas C

  

    to be left alone
From: bashford@scripps.edu (Don &)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 92 05:38:38 GMT
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA

>>>>> In article <1992Sep9.193301.4606@sol.cs.wmich.edu>, 33plato@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Larry Plato) writes:



plato> One thing you have forgotten is a sales tax, the entire income
plato> tax revenue could be replaced by a flat 16% tax on legal sales.
plato> it would have the following benefits...

plato> 1. the beuracracy to enforce/collect sales tax is already in place
plato> 2. it would eliminate the irs completely (including their expensive
plato>    computer /big brother systems.

plato> 3. since there would be no income tax, then people would have a
plato> stronger incentive to save.  the increase in saving would
plato> increase the available credit supply and drop interest rates,
plato> the drop in interest rates would save the government a fortune.

How about the opposite?  Eliminate all sales taxes and retain only
the income tax with lost sales tax revenues made up for by closing
loopholes and raising the taxes of the upper income brackets.

Advantages:
1.  It would eliminate the beauracracy to enforce/collect sales tax.
2.  The IRS is already in place.
3.  It would eliminate a burden on retailers and stimulate the retail
    economy.
4.  It is more progressive.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: gfeygin@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin)
Subject: Re: LP PR: ballot petitioning completed!
Organization: University of Toronto
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:49:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.015230.27956@eskimo.celestial.com> delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
>
>>MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM<
>: LIBERTARIAN PARTY                                       Libertarian Party :
>: Defenders of Liberty            NEWS             1528 Pennsylvania Ave SE :
>:                                                      Washington, DC 20003 :
>:                                                              202-543-1988 :
>>MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM<
>
>For immediate release.                             FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
>9 September 1992                Mary Gingell, LP National Chair: 415-858-1842
>                               Gary Johnson, LP Media Relations: 512-441-6378
>
>
>
>            LIBERTARIANS COMPLETE BALLOT PETITIONING NATIONWIDE
>
>
>     "The Libertarian Party has finished the petitioning to be on the ballot
>in all 50 states and the District of Columbia," Libertarian Party national
>chair Mary Gingell (JING'-gel) proudly announced today.
>
>     The last petition was turned in on Tuesday, 8 September, in Minnesota.
>A total of 3,186 signatures were submitted at 9 a.m. by the Minnesota
>Libertarian Party to the Secretary of State's office at the state capitol in
>St. Paul; 2,000 were needed.
>
>     In several states, other paperwork remains to be done, or state
>officials still must confirm that enough signatures were collected.  In
>Alaska, a lawsuit involving a petition deadline is pending.  But party
>officials expect these final steps to be completed 

Just out of curiousity --- why do Libertarians need a petition drive? 
IS THERE SOME LAW that discriminates against smaller political parties?

Here in Canada a party has to collect signatures just once, with re-registration
automatic every year upon payment of some minimal registration fee.

GF



Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mcbeeb@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Brian Mcbee)
Subject: Re: taxes
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Distribution: alt.politics.libertarian
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 23:49:09 GMT

In article <DSTEINBE.92Sep13162211@emmy.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>Congrats. Kyler, you won the Find the Fallacy contest.
>The old Prisoner's Dilemma, the only problem I have ever been able to
>find with libertarianism.
>So, how do we get around that?
>Let's see: What are government expenses that everyone needs?
>
>Trash Removal:
>This one is a toughie (Me not having my trash removed could cause
>sanatation problems for the whole neighborhood) but I have seen towns
>with private garbage people before. How do they work it?  Maybe just
>some sort of shame factor might work, the same way neighbors get
>everyone to keep their lawns looking nice...

I'm 98% sure that all garbage collection in my town is private, though I'm
not sure if competition is allowed, and rates are set by fiat, I believe.
You can, however, not pay for collection and haul the stuff yourself to
the nearest landfill/incinerator/collection point.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Statistics . . .
Keywords: Statistcis
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 18:24:44 GMT

In <1992Sep15.173633.2767@SSD.intel.com> rogerc@ssd.intel.com (Roger Christal) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.182317.1326@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
>   hagman@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP writes:
>>One might point out that a commonly touted statistic for the US is that 10%
>>of the population has 90% of the wealth.  
>Really?  You mean if you randomly pick out 10 people (for argument, 21
>years of age or older), one of them will have at least 9 times the
>wealth of the other 9 combined?
>The figure I gave seems much more reasonable.  Pick at random 20
>people who pay income tax one of them will pay 43% of the entire tax
>bill of the group.

I don't think either is particularly enlightening.  Statistics can be
twisted to say whatever you want--it's all in the interpretation.

I think there are numbers to back both of these up, but they don't
contradict each other, they just talk about different things.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
   This is a chain letter.  Within the next fifty-five days you will receive
                    thirty-eleven hundred pounds of chains!
From: dab@asylum.UUCP (Dave Bridgham)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: property tax? was: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:02:38 GMT

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>This works well until you get into foreign dealings.  Since a nation
>the size of the USA is almost certain to be involved in international
>relations, some national organization must defend it.  Local militias
>(like the National Guard) will duffice for domestic affairs, but you
>don't want them getting involved in national defense.  

You seem to be talking here about using military force outside of our
national boundries.  You're absoutely right that this is not
appropriate for a militia.  Many would argue that it's not appropriate
for anyone.  But I was talking about national defense, meaning only
the defense of our country itself.  That, I think, is appropriate for
a militia.

Remember, the National Guard is not a militia.  A militia consists of
those armed citizens not part of a standing or professional army.

						Dave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rogerc@ssd.intel.com (Roger Christal)
Subject: Re: Statistics . . .
Keywords: Statistcis
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division, Intel Corp.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:36:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.182317.1326@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
   hagman@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.204207.25671@SSD.intel.com>
>    rogerc@ssd.intel.com (Roger Christal) writes:
>>
>>I heard from a reputable source that 43% of all US income tax revenues
>>are paid by 5% of the population.  You're absolutely right.  These
>>suckers aren't paying nearly enough!
>>
>One might point out that a commonly touted statistic for the US is that 10%
>of the population has 90% of the wealth.  

Really?  You mean if you randomly pick out 10 people (for argument, 21
years of age or older), one of them will have at least 9 times the
wealth of the other 9 combined?

The figure I gave seems much more reasonable.  Pick at random 20
people who pay income tax one of them will pay 43% of the entire tax
bill of the group.

>Now -- back to basic algebra, boys and girls.  If 10% of the population has
>90% of the wealth, then assuming a linear function, 5% of the population
>should have about 45% of the wealth.  Of course, it is more probable that
>the upper 5% would have _more than_ 45% of the wealth, but let's just say
>that the upper 5% had 45% of the wealth.  

You predicated this entire argument on nonsense.

>Go figure -- somebody threw up a number w/o thinking about it on UseNet.
>I'm shocked.  NOT.

I feel I've shown the same could be said for your numbers.

>>Is {;^) really necessary?
>Yeah -- the small portrait of a doofus is completely appropriate. . .

Look, if you don't agree with what I said, fine.  Is a personal attack
(calling me a doofus) really necessary?  Just what IS your political
affiliation?  Are you a Libertarian?  If so, is this sort of treatment
expected when disagreeing with Libertarians?

I'm only asking these questions because I want to make sure I avoid
others like you.  Nothing personal, I just don't like you.

-- 

>>=-  Roger Christal  rogerc@techbook.com  rogerc@ssd.intel.com  -=<<
From: dab@asylum.UUCP (Dave Bridgham)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:37:16 GMT

wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes:

>I don't see why this is "bad".  If the goal is to make the society
>a more prosperous one, thereby helping individuals towards freedom,
>then one should not retire too "early" in life (ie one should be
>"productive" for a "reasonable" amount of time).  Retiring implies
>that you have worked long enough to have enough money to stop working
>for at least a few years, so you can probably afford to continue
>paying property taxes.

I'm sure a lot of people don't see this as "bad".  You say that the
goal of making society more prosperous leads to helping individuals
towards freedom.  I think more freedom for individuals must include
the freedom to not participate in the economic system or to
participate only to the extent they wish.  I see a system that
requires everyone to be ``"productive" for a "reasonable" amound of
time'' as containing a serious blow against individual freedom.  This
is the direction of my thinking that leads me to dislike property
taxes.

					Dave Bridgham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: LP PR: ballot petitioning completed!
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:23:22 GMT

gfeygin@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>
>Just out of curiousity --- why do Libertarians need a petition drive? 
>IS THERE SOME LAW that discriminates against smaller political parties?

Yes. Most states have their legal code rigged to keep anyone but
Democrats and Republicans off the ballot. Among other tricks used are
states which state that only the two parties with the highest
gubinatorial vote get automatic ballot access, states that say that
only those parties that got more than 20% of the vote for some office
get automatic ballot access, etc. There are a few states where these
discriminatory rules don't exist, but they are in the minority; most
of the country is rigged to keep any alternative off the ballot
without the expenditure of substantial resources. Getting on the
presidential ballot in all 50 states costs a vast amount of money;
without heavy volunteer networks like the LP has, its a two million
dollar proposition. Even with the LPs networks, its a half to three
quarter million dollar proposition.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Better a libertarian in Hell than a taxpayer in Heaven.
Date: 11 Sep 1992 20:25:51 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Sep11.183039.10147@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>OK, if you don't like all these definitions, what better one can you
>come up with?  Put up or shut up.

You guys are just like the creationists.  Trying to shift the burden of proof
away from your own pie-in-the-sky fantasies onto the flaws of real working
systems.  We already have the worst government in the world: except for all
the rest.  Prove that yours isn't one of the rest, that it's better than
what we have now.  The proof isn't in few bright points in the libertarian
scheme: it's in how little would fall through the cracks.  What good would
it be to replace the objections we have today with a larger or worse set
of objections under a libertarian system?

>If you just hate libertarians and the concept of being one, then
>please stop reading the group.

Non-sequiteur.  I dislike the excesses of libertarianism and I dislike reading
idiotic postings, but I dislike such idiocies going uncontested even worse.
Just like creationism, libertarian dogma is plausible and convincing to
potential converts until compared with counterarguments.

>  Useless flamage is... useless.

Are you deliberately trying to sound as stupid as objectivists?
"Golly, that's obvious from the principle of identity."

There are alot of ways that my response could be useful (assuming that your
judgment as flammage is rhetorical.)

1) Criticism could shame certain posters into writing more thoughtfully.
   I can see that hasn't worked for you yet.

2) It might keep undecided people from accepting specious libertarian
   arguments.

3) It might force explication of assumptions which could actually make sense
   of certain libertarian points of view.

As a matter of fact, your posting looks kind of useless.  All you did was
ignore what I said and say "go away".

Mike Huben

"... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make
themselves artificially stupid."  Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian