HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 10:23:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.084522.21316@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
}
}	This is one of the worst arguments I can think of for
}	changing the way in which the people select their
}	representatives in a democracy.  Taken ad absurdum,
}	would you support an initiative that prohibited the
}	people from voting for women, or Jews, or people above
}	six feet in height, if it were shown that those groups
}	were more likely to be big spenders?

First of all, most Congressmen aren't Jews or women, so limiting their terms
of office would tend to make it more possible for these groups to break into
the legislative cartel.

Secondly, barring any overriding benefits from having these minorities in
office (which I'm unaware of), I don't see why this reasonable measure can't
be taken to minimize the spending of Congress, although I don't think this
will be its main effect.

The main effect I see is merely to break the cartel, which is a good in
itself.

}	I don't sit easy with the idea that we should use "studies"
}	showing "correlations" to filter our who is and who is
}	not worthy to be elected in a democracy.

Let's take this to absurdum, too: suppose studies showed that WASPs tended
to pass Nazi policies (which is false as far as I know).  Would you so
readily support their worth to serve lifetime sentences in Congress?

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: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:13:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.060845.5092@mr.med.ge.com> gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:
}: >}	I think this is topic worth discussing.  Why are so many
}: >}libertarians opposed to feminism?  
}: >
}: >I wouldn't say that it's that we're opposed to feminism per se, but that
}: >we don't do enough to emphasize the individualism in feminism, and spend
}: >all our time attacking the statism in it.
}: 
}: 	But why not emphazide the individualism.  In other words, why is
}: that magazines like liberty do tend to target feminism; and take the
}: anti-feminist position on zillions of issues.
}:
}Possibly because feminist see govt. intervention, and intrusion in
}peoples lives as a method of bringing about "fairness and equality".
}The feminists beleive in using govt. to mold society into the form
}they beleive is proper. This sounds very socialist to me. 

This is true of many feminists, but not all.  Liberty's going to be
publishing Wendy McElroy's "Feminist Defense of Pornography," among other
things.

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
Subject: Re: Do children have rights independent of their parents? 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90c (ka9q DIS 1.18, CC 1.18c)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 06:27:35 +0000


In article <s0499528.20.0@let.rug.nl> s0499528@let.rug.nl writes:

>Hong Kong is a very controlist state; even democratic reform is instated top-
>down. There is hardly a single elected body of government and it has had
>impending unification with China forced down its throat by the colonial
>government in -God help us!- Great Britain.

Just a point - Hong Kong was *leased* from China by the (colonial)
government of Great Britain.  We are now having to return it to the
owners because the lease has run out.  Of course, in the name of
colonialism we could fight it out with China...

However, that does not mean that I approve of the high-handed way that
the British government is treating the citizens in Hong Kong, who up
until recently thought that they *were* British citizens...

>At this very moment, in his smoke-and-incense-filled room, the man who is
>most likely to become the next Prime Minister is discussing, with his
>cronies, measures to turn the clock back some thirty-odd years. In the
>name of Jesus, drug toleration, sexual freedom and freedom of speech will
>go out of the window by 1994, when mr. Brinkman, a member of the
>conservative Right and leader designate of the ruling Christian Democrat
>Party takes up office after a parliamentary election that he, as successor
>to Ruud Lubbers, the present prime minister, cannot possibly lose, barring a
>miracle. This will herald the end of the Netherlands as we know it.

I am very sad to hear that.  I have for a long time upheld the
Netherlands as the only civilised country in Europe...

Chris

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Date: 20 Dec 92 00:51:49 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Dec18.111459.18901@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>In article <77760@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|}Low marginal productivity may have been inherited from feudalism, but it
|}wasn't caused by feudalism.  It was caused by a lack of technology.
|}
|}For example, a man with a mule will never be able to haul as much as a man
|}with a tractor.

|Then why did the standard of living decrease when Rome fell?

Two reasons.  Loss of technology and loss of trade.  Technology requires
urban centers to develop and maintain it.  Trade allows each area to
specialize, loss of trade requires each area to make do with only what it
can produce itself.
Let's face it, the plows, jars and other things that made a farmers life
easier, were not made at that farm.  They were made elsewhere and the
farmer traded his excess production for them.  When the farmer could no
longer get those things he was farced to make do with what he himself
could make.  Trade was also lost partially because Rome was no longer
able to keep the trade routes safe. vis-a-vis, Somalia.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:24:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.223252.29959@sco.com> erics@sco.COM (eric smith) writes:
>
>bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>
>>rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham) writes:
>
>>>  You better open your eyes, the current system is ruled by special interests.
>>>  If you went to Wash with a pet peeve, on your own with no money backing
>>>  you, your congressperson would view you as a nuisance. This is the
>>>  result of the demopublicans running the country. Remember, lobbyists are
>>>  people who are seeking favors and advantages over their competitors.
>
>>Two questions:
>
>>  1) Has it ever been different?
>>  2) Do you think it ever will be?
>
>At least now we have some governmental protection in the form of regulation.
>For example, if a person feels discriminated against in hiring or firing,
>he or she can go to the EEOC.

So the EEOC has to set certain 'quotas' to make sure each business mimics
the American cultural mix. Why are professional sports and congress exempt?
You may feel this protects the individual, but it leaves the business to
flounder, particularly small business. How can we possibly compete with
Japan when our own govt ties our hands?

 The FAA assures certain safety standards for
>air travel. 

Do you think airlines would risk crashes with multi-million dollar planes?
In fact, most of the major airlines have stricter standards than those
set by the govt.

The EPA works to ensure that corporations aren't polluting
>our environment. Et cetera. 

 Correction, the EPA ensures that corporations fall within approved standards.
 And, the US govt is exempt from those standards (the military is a heavy
 polluter).

But hand the system over to Libertarians,
>and your only recourse if you've been wronged or injured (or your
>survivors' if you've been killed) will be to hire lawyers to pursue
>the other party. Give me a break. What chance would an average citizen
>have going against Dow Chemical? "Special interests"? This country is
>not "ruled by" special interests; this country IS special interests.

And we need to return to a constitutional govt to make sure no member of
any particular special interests incurs govt'al favors over the rest of
us

>Every one of us is a member of at least one special interest group.
>(And, by the way, I don't have to go to Washington to communicate with
>my congressperson. I've done it right here and I was not treated as a
>"nuisance". 

Sure, your congressperson will act nice to you. Try contacting him/her
when you know he/she is being wined/dined by lobbyists. Letters are too
easy, I suggest you try calling.

Maybe that's one reason Clinton picked him to be director
>of the OMB.)
>
>-----
>Eric Smith	    | "My friends, no matter how rough the road may be,
>erics@sco.com	    |	we can and we will, never, never surrender
>erics@infoserv.com  |	to what is right."
>CI$: 70262,3610	    |		- J. Danforth Quayle
> 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:50:37 GMT

In article <1gt8obINNpqn@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <xgT=dz@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.213849.12239@unlv.edu> bright@unlv.edu (Paul Conte) writes:
>>>Money should be electronic in this day and age. 
>>
>>No way, no way, no way. The problem with electronic money is that it's
>>very, very easy to trace. Do *you* want the government to have an exact
>>record of your every transaction?
>
>I'm amazed that this statement has stood unchallenged for several days on
>a network of computer users.
>
>The technology for untraceable transactions has been around for a few years.
>There was an article about it this past year in Scientific American.  It is
>premised on public key encryption being impractical to break.
>
>Mike Huben
>

	Now clearly the government could allow for untracable money; but
probably they wouldn't.  Right now, everbody takes cash, and cash is
totally untracable.  Everything else is tracable.  I can't see the
government allowing for an untracable cash; considering they've done
everything but illiminate cash, to stop untracable money (stop printing
$500+ dollar bills, force report of over $5,000 trasactions ....).

--JMB


	
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:49:32 GMT

Joh Haas -  I've deleted the discussion because most everyone knows the
major points of contention.  To sumarize:

1)  I think we should use oil because it has an intrinsic value.  You
think we should use gold because its portable, and we would have rely
on commodities (a problem if a crash came).  I continue to contend that if
the crash came it really wouldn't matter if you had gold or dollars they
both be equally worthless.

2)  You still haven't responded
to a strong counterpoint though:  Do you honestly think all the gold in
the world is worth more than all of the US currency in circulation?

3)  Regarding the likelyhood of a crash, you argued that a default on the
deficit was likely to occur, and would lead to the crash.  I disagree with
both points.  First, I don't think we'll default, it goes to far against
the protestant work ethic .....  stuff our leaders out into.  
	Second, even if we did default that would simply ake it very
difficult if not impossible for the country to borrow.  Do you really
think that this would lead to the end of our culture.  You mentioned riots
do to people's savings.  Most people's savings is in their home, not in
the bond market.  Their pensions might get killed, but corporate bonds
would retain their value. 

4)  Finally, there is a question of who wants large of gold.  If someone
did don't you think that South Africa would have sold them all they wanted?
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Views? :
Date: 12 Dec 92 04:40:58 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <1992Dec12.012334.3472@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <11339@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec9.221200.20158@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> also, if your statement #2 is true, why did gold go up in value by
>>|> an order of magnitude after the gold standard was *removed*?
>>|> 
>>
>>You are assuming the value of gold went up when it is much more likely that
>>the value of the pieces of paper actually dropped once they were no longer
>>tied to anything of real value.
>
>say what?
>i must be missing some important neurons somewhere...
>
>what exactly is the difference between the value of gold going up
>and the value of money going down? they are measured against one
>another, and since the gold standard was abolished the market has decided
>that one ounce of gold is worth ten times as many pieces of paper as
>it was worth before (it was actually 25 times at one point, of course).
>that is exactly the point i was trying to make.
>
>please explain.
>
>--
>charles

The difference is what you can buy.  Say for example that $10=ounce of
gold.  Then they remove the restrictions.  Now $400 = ounce of gold.  Did
gold, go up or money go down.  Well, 100 years ago, I could probably buy
about 100 chickens for an ounce of gold.  Today I could probably do the
same.  However, I'd be hard pressed to buy a hundred chickens for $10.
	As long as were on the subject of intrinsic value, I've heard it
expressed that the best measure is the cost of a man's haircut.  It takes
about the same amount of labor today as it did 100 years ago, and there
are no resources involved to distort the value.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: gold
Date: 17 Dec 1992 17:07:48 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Dec16.033529.22840@fx.com> raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael) writes:
>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>>There's a real question of whether any nation could compete any more with a
>>gold-based currency.  No matter what the exchange rate, the other nations of
>>the world could simply print currency to buy out all the gold of the GS
>>nation.
>
>Not with floating exchange rates, they couldn't. Example: Translyvania starts
>printing billions of drachmas, which used to be equivalent to dollars. They
>try to convert them to US dollars, but drachmas are now a glut on the market,
>and they end up getting only one dollar per 100 million drachmas, a
>reasonable indicator of the new relative buying powers of the two currencies.
>With which they can buy very little gold.

Transylvania prints a billion drachmas, and buys gold-backed currency until
people find out that they have more drachmas than they used to.  The value of
the drachma falls, and falls further than it should because people have the
Transylvania-inspired-impression that the market is flooded by drachmas even
worse than it is.  Transylvania then buys back its drachmas with a portion of
the gold-backed currency it sold them for, holds an elaborate drachma-burning
ceremony to reinstill faith in the drachma, and nets alot of gold.

Iterate over most of the nations of the world.  Soon, gold-backed currencies
are exhausted.

Market hysterhesis and manipulation is only one of the real factors your
overly simplistic analysis (and most other recently posted libertarian
styled economic analyses) omit.

Mike Huben

"The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves,
only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that
there may be something to them [which] we are missing."  Gamel Nasser
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Labelling laws.
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:39:23 GMT

In article <11336@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.080931.4995@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>|> 
>|> Wrong.  We can't secede even if we want to and are justified in doing so.
>|> The American Empire won't let us.
>|> 
>
>Actually, it would be interesting to see what the reaction both within the US
>and without if one of the states (I nominate Pennsylvania) decided to secede.
>
>After all, when the former USSR was breaking up didn't we say it was their right
>to secede if they so desired??  And what about Yugoslavia??  Hasn't the US made
>it their official policy that secession of the various states is their right??
>
>So why not here too??
>
>It would be interesting to see what the Federal response would be and also to 
>see what the rest of the world would think of that response.
>
>bill
>
>-- 
>

	Well, a bunch of states tries to secede a while back, and the
national response wasn't to possitive.  They even had a better argument
then a state would now.  But anyway, I think the Soviet anology is false. 
Our whole argument about the Soviet Union relied on several features not
present in America:

1)  The Soviet Union was not a Nation/State, but just a state.  The
various republics are however nation/states, and thus would make for
better unified countries.

2)  The states of the USA voluntarly joined the union.  All 13 original
states signed the draft of the constitution, everyone but Rhode Island
subsequently ratified in their state govt ASAP.  Every other state has
applied for admission the US congress.  And finally even in the territories
the vast majority of people support remaining and least territories; and
some like Guam and Somoa, want full statehood.
	Conversely all of the Rupublics of the Soviet Union except I think
Moldovia were forcibly unified with Russia (some of the easttern ones a
while back but ...).  

3)  The vast majority of people in the break away republics wanted to
secede.  This wasn't the case in the South, where people had very mixed
feelings.

4)  Were very hypocritical when it comes to Russia.
From: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:33:19 GMT
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

: >Actually I don't think the gov't of last century was much better than this
: >batch of fools.
: 
: Quite right. It's a common (and wrong) perception that the present is the
: worst things have ever been, and oh, if only we could go back to the Golden
: Age of {50/100/1000} years ago, when life was simpler and happier...
: 
: Of course, the Golden Age of the 1950's featured segregation, McCarthyism,
: environmental devastation, and the Cold War Turnin' Hot (so much for the
: conservative golden-agers.) The Golden Age of the 1800's featured imperialism,
: sweatshops, oligarchies, slavery, and discrimination of every conceivable
: sort (so much for the Libertarian golden-agers.) And the Golden Age of the
: Distant Pastorial Past featured short lifespans, rampant disease, endless
: religious wars, and feudalism (so much for the liberal golden-agers.)
:


Technology, and free enterprise is what has given us this better standard of
living, not govt. regulations. Certainly, in order for free-enterprise to 
work, we need to play by the same rules. Contract law for instance keeps both
parties to an agreement honest. Force of law is sometimes needed to uphold
the terms of an agreement, or to settle disputes. Technology has helped reduce
the exploitation of laborors in the past. The cotton gin reduced the need for
slaves moreso than did the Emancipation Proclimation. To suggest that the form
of govt. we have now doesn't matter, simply because we are better off is absurd.
To suggest that the any particular form of govt. was better at fighting off
disease, crop failures, and short lifespans is equally absurd. Only through
free-enterprise, and advancing technology have we been able to overcome the
problems of the past. Now instead of working people to death, the problem has
become that machines have taken over too much work from people. The govt. won't
solve this problem , any more than it solved the problems of the past. Only 
by maximizing the potential of the individual, can we continue to move foreward.
This means that with the freedom to succeed, comes the freedom to fail. The most
the govt. can do is provide a safe and stable arena for the individual to move
forward, and overcome his problems. The fact that the govt. has tried to solve
our problems for us, has been more of a hinderance, than an asset.

Felix Gorney
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: N-C abortion
Date: 18 Dec 92 04:26:54 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

As far as the food supply goes, there is no evidence that soon (or anytime)
man will be faced with a shortage of food. Hell, our great government
is paying our so-productive farmers not to grow things. Malthus' law
of populations comes into effect only in those areas where there is
no market economy. I believe China has the same population density
as Pennsylvania, but China operates under a socialistic economy (an
oxymoron, actually). If people in this world would wake up and see the
value of a strong market economy, it would be possible to eliminate
poverty almost completely in the long run.

I wonder if it will happen.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Subject: Re: Corporate Government
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:01:27 GMT

In article <1gj6e3INNa3f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan) writes:
>
>In response to Mike Huben's criticism of anarcho-capitalism:
>
>Mr. Huben stated the abuses a corporation-as-government would 
>commit. Nonetheless you would first have the choice of which
>corporation to seek employment under. If the employer ever abused
>your rights, you would probably have a number of individuals or
>entities willing to protect you. You may scoff at my last 
>remark, but even in our society there are individuals who
>will do such a selfish act as to save another human being.
>
>Virtually,
>
>Edmund J. Ryan

Wasn't there an appropriate quote about this?  (Paraphrased)
A man in notheless a slave even if he...  

nah, forget it.



William