HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Party line
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 12:49:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.230029.11734@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Suppose I believe that coercion is bad in a lot of cases.  Suppose even that
>it's a lot more cases than most Democrats or Republicans believe in.  But it's
>not everything.
>
>Can I be a member of the Libertarian party?  Can I call myself a
>{L,l}ibertarian?

You can of course call yourself anything you want. I'm willing
to call you a libertarian. If you take signing pledges seriously
then you cannot be a member of the LP. I want to change this!

>I suspect this situation is very common.  I'd be deciding "because it produces
>results that are good, I support the NCP", rather than "because I support the
>NCP, I automatically consider anything resulting from it to be good".  Even if
>I support everything libertarian now, there might be some situation I haven't
>yet thought of where I might conclude the NCP flunks.  What then?

I agree with you. (I'm an LP member, but I don't take pledges
seriously unless they are legally binding or between me and
someone I trust). More evidence in favor of scrapping the pledge
as a requirement for LP membership!
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "Little leaves are crying"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:18:54 +0000

In article <1jnbe9INNobv@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com writes:

>>> Encryption implies encoding
>>> information in such a way that, with a piece of data presumably known
>>> intended receivers (a key) the message can be decrypted easily, but without
>>> that key the message can only be decrypted with great computational expense.

I'm jumping into this rather late, too, but I have read the previous
messages...

I would relate the radio case to the case with the Net.  If someone
sends out a broadcast (not tight-beam) message, they are expecting other
people to 'read' it.  Like posting on a newsgroup.  If there are parts
of a message which they wish to be understood only by one individual,
but they don't know where, it is *their* duty to encrypt (in the sense
of modifying so that it cannot be easily restored to the original form)
the material.  If they use an easily-broken method (like ROT-13) then
they are saying, by default, that "I don't want you to read this
casually, but I don't mind you reading it as long as you know what
you're doing".  That is, in fact, the way ROT-13 is used on many groups
- so that people have no comeback if they read something offensive to
them (or 'spoilers' to a book) because they had to make an effort to
read it (generally after being warned).

So my conclusion would be with previous posters that it's OK to receive
the signal (and 'decode' it if I wish to make the effort), but this
gives me *no* rights of redistribution.  I would also say that
'distributing' it to friends is not my right - if they want to reveive
it on *their* property, that's up to them.

How do other people feel about the 'rights' on the Net?  Are messages
still copyright to the author?

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Party line
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 09:00:11 GMT

In article <YAMAUCHI.93Jan23162806@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>I agree completely.  I value individual freedom, economic prosperity,
>and technological progress.  I support both civil libertarianism and
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the free enterprise system because they are effective at maximizing
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>these values.  On the other hand, I don't find either natural rights
>or Objectivist arguments for the NCP very convincing.

And that is the working definition of libertarian. If the LP is
only for natural rights absolutists then it should stop
committing fraud now by terminating its use of the nolan chart
and by terminating any claims that Jefferson or Thoreau were
libertarians. The world's shortest political quiz should have
one question: "Do you oppose the initiation of force in all
cases?" Wouldn't that be a great outreach tool? Well that is
about how great the pledge and platform are.

>I agree -- although I think the real problem is not so much the oath
>itself, but the mentality behind the oath.  The voters aren't
>interested in abstract philosophical principles, they're interested in
>results.  If the LP can convince the public that it offers solutions,
>it may start to influence policy and win elections -- otherwise it
>will remain as irrelevant as the CPUSA...

Absolutely. And the LP will be judged not by how pure its
platform is, but by the extent to which its actions promote
greater liberty. 
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "To stop their tears with salt"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
From: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman)
Subject: Re: Perot's "United We Stand America" launch
Reply-To: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu
Organization: Wayne State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:08:09 GMT

In article 6552@kpc.com, emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
     [...]
>>
>There hasn't been a national debt for 200 years. The current debt started
>with Nixon's deficit spending. Before that, we had a small surplus. We have
>had a periodic national debt, but all of them (except the last one) were
>eventually paid off.
>
>
This is what's known in technical terms as "a gross error". It's rather 
stupid, as well, as can be seen by anyone who looks at the figures. 

For example, at the end of WWII we had a debt equal to about 125%-150%
of GNP. That's around three times the size of the 1990 debt. It was brought
down rather quickly, and not by raising taxes, but by raising GNP.

Our debt has varied widely over the past 200 years. The only thing remarkable
about the curretn debt is the size in absolute numbers. As a % of GNP, it's
not exactly idea, but neither is it unusual. 

To put the debt in perspective, let's say you make $40,000/year and buy a
$200,000 house with 20% down. You now have a debt equal to 400% of your
personal "GNP". If you've got a rising income that's fine. If your income is falling,
that debt is going to be a big problem.

mike





Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
From: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman)
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the
Reply-To: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu
Organization: Wayne State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:05:49 GMT

Do high interest rates, brought on by financing the debt, act as a drag on
business? Perhaps, but taxes are a much bigger drag.

One of the sinle biggest drags in the tax we pay on inflation. If a business
invests $100, and gets a 5% return, and inflation is 3%, that's a real profit
of 2%, right? Wrong.

Corporations pay a tax of 50%, and not on the inflation adjusted profit, but 
on the nominal profit. On the nominal $5 profit that comes to $2.50. But your actual
profit was only $2- you've just paid not 50%, but 125%. Hmm.

There are also the hidden costs of regualtions and liability. Unlimited liability
doctrines such are practiced in the US have already destroyed some industries. 
COnsider: General Aviation has been becoming safer and safer over its history- but 
the number of suits and the amount paid out in suits and settlements has 
increased over the same time. Companies found to be only 5% at fault can be made
to pay huge settlements, if they have the deep pockets. This has just about
destroyed the general aviation industry in the US. An increasing number of planes
are imported every year. Companies can't afford the insurance anymore- and this
is and continues to be one of the tightest regulated industries there is.

The debt is not a major drag if offset by resonable growth. I've used the example
before of an individual finanicing a first-time house as a corallary. You expect
to make more money over time to offset your debt. As long as your income grows
and your house appreciates you're okay. But a depreciating house can wipe you
out; so can high inflation. That's what happened in the late 70s, of course.

Clinton has promised a capital-gains tax cut, but only for small businesses and
only on inventments held 5 years or more. That's not really a help. It constrains
the movement of capital, which leads to further ineffieciencies. There's also
a more subtle disincentive. It only promises to benifit investors at some time
in the future- in, possibly, another administration. There is a parallel in`
oil price regulations on the 70s. New oil was deregulated, while old oil stayed
under control. Almost immediately the government reneged by redefining some
new oil as "old new oil", and some as "new new oil". The "old new" oil was of course
regulated contrary to the government's promise. Investors will no doubt judge 
this promise similarly, should it go into effect.

  --mike edelman
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Tax cuts (is this guy crazy)
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:29:20 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan22.000154.12259@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>|>mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
>|>>what he said (or my interpretation of it) was that if you believe it's
>|>>the job of the government to stimulate the economy in times of
>|>>recession, government spending is better than income tax cuts, because
>|>>part of the cuts would go in to savings rather than investment.
>|>
>|>And this, of course, would be horrible, as the money just gets piled
>|>up in the back of the bank doing nothing, gathering dust. The banks
>|>get the interest they pay you by printing money or stealing it.
>|>
>So are you saying that those that have a little money left over should just
>hand it over to the government instead of putting it in savings to send 
>there kids to school or but that used car....

I believe you are suffering from satire impairment. For the benefit of
those similarly disabled, I'll restate my case without satire.

The notion that government spending is better than tax cuts because
"tax cuts just go into savings and not into investment" is based on
the idiotic notion that "savings" are different from "investment". Ask
yourself what banks do with the money you put in your savings account
sometime -- my jest was that for the idiotic polititians to be right,
the banks would have to be piling up the money in big dusty vaults
instead of making loans, which is what they in fact do with it. Saving
money IS investing it -- you are just using the bank as a very big
"fund manager" instead of making loans yourself.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Tax cuts (is this guy crazy)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 14:18:21 GMT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <MDL.93Jan25181036@ak.cypress.com>, mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan25.162721.21618@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
|> 
|>    In article <1993Jan22.000154.12259@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
|> 
|>    |>mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
|>    |>>what he said (or my interpretation of it) was that if you believe it's
|>    |>>the job of the government to stimulate the economy in times of
|>    |>>recession, government spending is better than income tax cuts, because
|>    |>>part of the cuts would go in to savings rather than investment.
|>    |>
|> 
|>    (sarcasm turned on because banks loan businesses money)
|>    |>And this, of course, would be horrible, as the money just gets piled
|>    |>up in the back of the bank doing nothing, gathering dust. The banks
|>    |>get the interest they pay you by printing money or stealing it.
|>    |>
|> 
|>    So are you saying that those that have a little money left over should just
|>    hand it over to the government instead of putting it in savings to send 
|>    there kids to school or but that used car....
|> 
|> I'll try explaining my novice interpretation of a small portion of
|> Keynes one more time.  This is in regards to deficit spending in order
|> to stimulate a stalled economy.  I don't believe Keynes ever advocated
|> people sending their money to the government because the government
|> was more efficient at spending it (although a lot of people may
|> disagree with me).  Where did Keynes recommend putting the "extra
|> money"?  The question was put to Keynes (not in these words) whether
|> or not the government should give the money back to the people through
|> tax cuts or would government projects be better for stimulating the
|> economy.  It was HIS view that government spending would be better
|> because people would put a substantial portion of the new money into
|> savings (rather than new business, investment, etc.)
|> 

Keynes was confused.  He attempted to prove that savings were bad
and investment was good.  However, by his own definitions, savings
and investment were, in fact, the same thing.  Why should 'savings'
be any different than 'investment'?  When you put money into 'savings',
where does the money go?  Does it sit in a vault until you take 
it out?  Banks lend the money to individuals and businesses, who
then spend the money on various things like capital equipment
purchases, housing purchases, etc.  Why is this bad but government
spending is good?


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
From: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman)
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Reply-To: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu
Organization: Wayne State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:18:04 GMT

In article 2362@uunet!tellab5!odgate, mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
      [...] 
Have you no parents?  Do they also receive no Social Security
>payments and no Medicare coverage?
>
>Will you never, ever be unemployed?  Wouldn't you like to be able
>to get some kind of medical care if that happened?
>
>And, the real point is, do you care about anyone but *you*?
>-- 
>--
>Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
>....!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
>odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.

The writer is a good example of the gross misconceptions that most people have
about these programs. Social Security is an excellent example, becasue it's
sold to the people as a pension plan- you pay in, you take out.

But that's an absolute lie. No money in banked in Social Security. It is
basically a pyramid scheme that depends on a growing population being taxed
to pay for the current payments. In the short term, SS looks very flush. In
the long term- and by that I mean only 30 years- it is insolvent.

Most of us who have our own pension plans are taxed far more for SS than we will 
ever receive. The only people who profit are those who have contributed
very little, if any, money to SS, as they are nonetheless guarenteed a minimum
benifit regardless of what they paid in. Those of use with seperate pension
plans will be doubly penalized, as our SS benifits will be reduced because 
we were wise enough to put some of our income aside for our later years.

Because the baby boom generation is aging, the number of retired people is
rising faster than the number of employed people. The optimistic estimates 
of the Social Security administration (read their bulletins) show the first
of the funds going bankrupt around 2020-2030, depending on exactly how optimistic
you are.

MOst of these handouts are justified as being a security blanket for the poor,
the infirm, the aged and so forth, but that's not what actually happens. Social
Security, for instance, has been a safe place to raid "off budget" funds from 
to fund special handouts. Medicaid is an excellent example of this. 

Finally, let's look at the last comment of our poster. Let me paraphrase another
famous quote and say that sanctimoniousness is the last refuge of the ignorant.
Somehow those that want to redistribute other people's money always seem to think
they have the upper hand on morality- even when thirty (or sixty) years of such
redistribution seems to have effects exactly opposite from those intended.

  --mike 



Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:39:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.165230.10182@cs.wayne.edu> mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu writes:
>Ergo: It is objectionable, from the perspective of individual rights, to
>coerce a person to contribute money to something he may object to 
>philisophically. Therefore even though some other agents may have contracted
>to do so, after the fact, it is objectionable to coerce him to do so. Yet
>agency laws allow a union to come in and do this sort of coercion after
>the fact.

It's not retroactive, though, and its not necessarily coercive.
It seems to me that the closest analogy is firing not for cause.
The employer has (in effect) fired all individual employees
and hired the union (which the individuals have the option of
joining or subcontracting for by paying fees).

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
From: lrvanh00@nx38.mik.uky.edu (lee r vanhorn)
Subject: Re: Preparing for the comming collapse of the federal government
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:00:18 GMT

In article <C11AAK.7rE@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed  
Ipser) writes:
> 
> 
> Let us suppose the the Perotists are correct, that the fiscal crisis
> which our federal government now faces will lead, inevitably, to the
> collapse of the federal government (and all that that implies). How,
> then, should we prepare for the collapse; what can we do to mitigate
> the effects and to best utilize our limited resouces.
> 
> I pose this question both on a personal and a societal level.
> 
> 
> 
> Some steps that American society might exercise include:
> 
> 1) Shoring up state and local governments to take up the slack in
> public services that will occur with the collapse of the federal
> government.
> 
> 2) Needless to say, states will need to get their own fiscal houses in
> order, those dependent upon federal funds are most at risk.
> 
> 3) Creation of private enterprises to provide services now provided by
> the federal government.
> 
> 4) Foster an underground economy, free of federal taxes and
> regulation.  States might provide some protection from the IRS in this
> area.
> 
5) We could dump welfare!
 
> 
> Some steps that individuals might exercise include:
> 
> 1) Divest of federal bonds, stocks in corporations which hold federal
> bonds, and notes dependent upon the value of federal bonds.
> 
> 2) Forget about Social Security. Make your own arrangements for
> retirement.
> 
> 3) If the federal reserve loses its independence and appears ready to
> monetarize the debt without concern for inflation, avoid dollar-
> denominated assets.
> 
> 4) Look for a job as far removed from the federal government as
> possible.  Not only can we expect the defense and welfare industries
> to collapse, but other jobs indirectly dependent on these will be
> in danger. Conversely, jobs will be avilable in areas of private
> industry which substitute.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else care to add to the list?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: Tax cuts (is this guy crazy)
Originator: jjprice@c00076-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:27:21 GMT


In article <1993Jan22.000154.12259@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

|>mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
|>>what he said (or my interpretation of it) was that if you believe it's
|>>the job of the government to stimulate the economy in times of
|>>recession, government spending is better than income tax cuts, because
|>>part of the cuts would go in to savings rather than investment.
|>
|>And this, of course, would be horrible, as the money just gets piled
|>up in the back of the bank doing nothing, gathering dust. The banks
|>get the interest they pay you by printing money or stealing it.
|>
So are you saying that those that have a little money left over should just
hand it over to the government instead of putting it in savings to send 
there kids to school or but that used car....
-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics