HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:03:49 GMT

palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer) writes:
>Of course we have more people incarcerated per capita.  Places like
>Peru and Chile just murder anyone who *might* have done something to
>piss off the police.  I heard a few months ago on the radio that
>some Red Cross (or whoever) people found mass graves with over 40,000
>rotted bodies.  Most had died from single-shot-to-head "viruses."

>Real easy to keep down those darned incarceration statistics, huh?

This is a valid point, but it does not follow from this that we have the
highest percentage incarcerated of any other nation simply because
*most* other countries "cheated" by killing instead of incarcerating.
Are Americans inherently more criminal than all other countries except
the ones you mention, in police states or civil wars?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: epperly@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tom Epperly)
Subject: Re: Marrou < 0.3%. The *REAL* reason no one reports Marrou's totals.
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Distribution: na
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:15:58
In-reply-to: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu's message of 5 Nov 92 06:11:54 GMT

Where did these results come from?  When are they from?

				Tom
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Epperly	University of Wisconsin-Madison		Chemical Engineering
(608) 262-8264	epperly@osnome.che.wisc.edu		Graduate Student
Member of the League for Programming Freedom(fighting software monopolies)
	For more info contact me or lpf@uunet.uu.net.
If you feel you must flame, please send email rather than posting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2228 alt.politics.libertarian:1829
From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,soc.veterans,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Who Cares? ( Re: Stockdale Bashed Again)
Date: 5 Nov 92 01:17:39 GMT
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973

Look, this is for veterans issues; let's leave politics aside for a
while.  Besides the election is over.  

Dave 
USNR 1959-1961
USAF 1961-1965
A VET and proud of it
-- 

Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Subject: Re: More Ohio state election results
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:19:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.204857.24611@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs
.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>
>Ohio House:
>
>6th District (Lancaster area)
>Robert H. Shonk, Jr. (D) 16,234  34.8%
>Jon D. Myers (R)         27,773  59.5%
>Russell A. Osborn (L)     2,662   5.7%
>
>[...]
>
>We were predicting 8-10% for Russ Osborn, though, but Lancaster's a tougher
>area than we thought.

Lancaster(OH) is basicly a small "redneck" town at heart. 
(no brag, just fact ;) )
-- 
If the price that I must pay to obtain my *  Robert E. Day/Syr Otto von    *
freedom, is to acknowledge that the Gov-  *  Schwartzkatz, Shire Mugmort   *
ernmet was granted the power to infringe  *  Barony Middle Marches,        *
on them, then I am not free. Paul Anderson*  Middle Kingdom                *
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2108 alt.politics.elections:22701 talk.politics.misc:58283
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Marrou < 0.3%. The *REAL* reason...
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:11:47 GMT
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov5.061154.16556@midway.uchicago.edu>,
   	thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) writes:

> Some folks would have you believe that the media is conspiring to keep
> the onslaught of Libertarian voters from the public's knowledge.  One
> credulous person claimed to me that two million people voted for Marrou,
> another claimed 1.8% of the vote.
> 
> Marrou ended up with less than 0.3% of the vote.  He barely beat out Lenora 
> Fulani.  The real reason no one reported Marrou's votes was because they
> were only slightly less meaningless than Lyndon LaRouche's.
> 

   Well, Ted may well be correct, but I am beginning to get rather
   sceptical about the whole process. There have been some claims that
   the election authorities actually only count votes of those
   candidates which they expect to win, leaving the count of the third
   parties until the legally mandated reporting time (20 days later in
   some states).

   In today's SF Chronicle, the following strange statistics were
   reported:-

   Calif Senate `long seat'		- Genis		220,000
   Calif Senate `short seat'		- Brodie	210,000
   Calif totals for president		- Marrou	 44,000


   Am I expected to believe that libertarians were so distressed with
   Marrou that 4 out of 5 of them couldn't bring themselves to vote
   for him, and as a consequence, voted for the offical candidates?

   BTW, in the Calif state races, most libertarians seemed to get
   between 2 and 6% of the vote in the multi-way races. Santa Clara
   Libs got around 8%. There was one race somewhere in the central
   valley between a Democrat and a Libertarian (no others) which
   brought in 15%.


Tony Cox, Stanford, CA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: cweyand@boi.hp.com (Chris Weyand)
Subject: Re: free market
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:35:11 GMT
Organization: HP Boise Printer Division R&D Lab

In article <1992Nov10.041738.17774@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
>gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
[...]
>  Just curious.  How do the following fit in with your argument?

>  1) Libertarians arranging protests and consumer boycotts against firms
>  that have employment contracts with individuals that include drug and
>  lie-detector tests.  If a firm thinks it is in its best economic
>  interest to have drug and lie-detector tests, shouldn't they be free
>  to hire only those willing to take these tests?

You have hit upon one of the most misunderstood aspects of Libertarianism.
The answer to your question is yes.  Employers should be free to
require e.g. drug tests from their employers.  Free from a LEGAL
standpoint that is.  This does not in any way imply that we can not
protest such a decision.  


>  2) Libertarians arranging protests and consumer boycotts against
>  newspapers and television stations that did not give them "fair"
>  campaign coverage.  Should Libertarians be telling the media what
>  to do with their private property?  The Libertarians might be in a
>  catch-22 on this one.  In a free market, only those with money have
>  power -- but the Libertarians have no money and thus no power.  And
>  they can't even complain about it, because that is the system they
>  are advocating.
>  ==

Dead wrong.  Of course we can and must complain about discrimination
by the media.  The point is that we don't need or want gov't to step
in and regulate the media to correct any bias that may be present.  We
are not advocating complete passiveness, only freedom from gov't
moralizing and mandated discrimination.  
To be truly free includes the freedom to be wrong.

A good analogy is Free Speech.  Most people in this country support
Freedom of Speech (i.e., the 1st Amendment).  By supporting Free
Speech does this mean I should not speak out against speech I find
repugnant or evil?

Another analogy: When a company provides horrible service to a
customer should the customer refrain from complaining because the
company is exercising a right (to provide as much or as little service
as they wish) that the customer supports?    
Sound absurd?  It is.  See the difference between this case and 2
above?  There is none.


>  Bob



--
Chris Weyand
Hewlett-Packard Company
cweyand@mail.boi.hp.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2197 alt.politics.libertarian:1786 sci.space:15625
From: goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.space
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform (Was: Oh, never mind)
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:35:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: sage4a.GOLDM.92Nov10113532
	<GOLDM.92Nov6153143@sage4a.rpi.edu>
	<1992Nov10.045151.22019@infonode.ingr.com>
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

In article <1992Nov10.045151.22019@infonode.ingr.com> drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude) writes:
>In article <GOLDM.92Nov6153143@sage4a.rpi.edu> goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:
>>NASA discovers new properties of aerodynamics and materials that saves
>>industry a lot of money that can be spent on other development. The party
>>seems to believe that if it is in the best interests of all involved, the
>>companies would make their own group to do what NASA does, but that group
>>would still be limited, either in how long it might take to build the
>>necessary infrastructure (which NASA has) or in general not having the
>>equipment NASA has (again, mostly already paid for). This isn't the only
>>case where a government agency already has material and manpower invested
>>in productive projects. 

>Hmmm...reminds of an article I saw recently in Design Engineering.
>McDonell Douglas has already designed a simple single-stage to orbit
>space shuttle that they expect to deploy in the mid '90s.  It's super
>light weight (compared to NASA's behemoth),  has a has a great payload
>capacity,  and will be rated for manned flight.  It was developed
>WITHOUT any contract funding from NASA or the military. Main cost
>breakthroughs were in new composites and cryogenics (if I remember
>correctly).  Yet we are still throwing billions at the NASP project. 

It's specifically these other technologies (composites, cryogenics, new fuels)
that I consider more than worthy of funding. However, the DC-X is under contract
from the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO), though McD and others
have invested in the basic technologies and facilities. A document on this
craft is available on ftp from ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/DeltaClipper.
This has gotten more technical than political. Follow-up has been redirected to
sci.space for those interested in continuing on this area.

--
Mitchell Gold, sundance@rpi.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: semi-automatic weapons
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:16:05 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu writes:
> >ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
> >> All three of them were firmly convinced that Andre Marrou is a 
> >> lunatic, because of some comments he made about the right to own 
> >> semi-automatic weapons. Apparantly, one reason given was to 
> >> protect ourselves from the government.
> >
> >sounds like Andre's been quoting Jefferson again. what a lunatic...
> >;^)
>
> Exactly ! My response to all three was that this idea, to protect
> ourselves from a tyrannical government, came from Jefferson. This
> just resulted in blank stares...

*sigh* typical.

> It seems that in my ordinary conversations with otherwise 
> intelligent people, the idea that the government will ever get so 
> bad as to require self protection is _universally_ viewed as 
> paranoid.

can you say "ap-a-thet-ic"? good! i knew you could... or should that
be "gullible"?

> Now I don't think that we should compromise on principles, but we
> should examine the fact (?) that maybe the American public is
> not ready for a Libertarian federal government. 

maybe? in my mind there's no doubt about it. the American public
is most certainly -NOT- ready for libertarian federal government.
i doubt it ever will be. the only reason i voted Marrou/Lord was
to protest the sad state of affairs our country is in. i've been
getting the sick sensation that things will continue to get worse,
not better...

> Maybe, instead of blowing a wad on an unwinnable presedential race, 
> we should blow 1000 milliwads on possibly winnable state and local 
> races.

i agree.

> We have to get our principles accepted at the local level before
> anyone will accept them on a grand scale. In other words, semi-
> automatic weapons are not an issue in the town council race...

again, i agree. so what's the best way to promote libertarian ideals
on local level? how would a libertarian city government work, for
example?

jason

--
  "I'm the keeper of the cheese, and you're the lemon merchant!" - Ren Hoek  
,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: ericj@eskimo.celestial.com (Eric Jorgensen)
Subject: Re: counting independent votes
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:03:21 GMT

snead@mdd.comm.mot.com (Gregory Snead) writes:
> I noticed that our local news (from Seattle, WA) didn't even list
> the names of the Libertarian candidates running for state office
> when they posted election results.  A couple of independants got
> up there and two Natural Law candidates were posted as well.

That's what pissed me off about this (and all others that I participated in so
far) election.  And I noticed that the percentages that Bush/Clinton/Perot got
were supposedly accumulating to 101% of the votes.  Someone was doing a bad
job at rounding numbers.

> We did have a candidate for L'tnt Gov who name was Absolutely
> Nobody, but the local news didn't list the votes for that
> candidate (or even that he/she/it was running).

He.  He legally changed his name so that he could put that on our ballot.  :)

> It seems simple enough to me.  Each ballot is read and an addition
> is made to the running balance of who was voted for.  You then post
> each  candidates name along with the number of votes for, the
> percentage that that vote represents, and the percentage of ballots
> counted.

Hmmm...  The networks won't like that... Too logical.  :)
And besides...you can only fit so many names on-screen at a time with the font
size they use.  :)

> Is this so difficult?  Do the networks feel that posting the
> results will harm their ratings?  Just give me the facts!

--
ericj@eskimo.celestial.com - Why are you reading this?...
                             ...The article's finished...
                             ...Go home.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2184 alt.politics.libertarian:1768
From: lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: NH LP candidates
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:53:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

What happened to the three NH Libertarians in the state legislature
running for re-election?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: President by popular vote?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:13:17 GMT

  This whole business of what "mandate" Clinton had garnered with 43% of the
popular vote raises a few questions for people who want to change the system
of electing the President (e.g. abolishing the Electoral College):

  1. Should there be a runoff election if no candidate gets a majority
       of the popular vote?

  2. How about if the numbers are close enough to create doubt as to whether
       a given candidate -has- gained a majority of the popular vote?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: free market
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:23:24 GMT

In article <BxJnvw.E5I@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
}>
}>That's easy.  They're coerced transactions.
}
}  It's only easy if you're simple-minded enough to ignore the point. The
}effect on the third party is coerced but s/he is not party to the transaction
}itself, which may be uncoerced. The point is that regulation has a place in
}the so-called marketplace to avoid and or minimize these effects, whether
}intended or just irresponsible, on innocent third parties.

You're being obtuse.  You've taken a hypothetical transaction with two parties,
and introduced a third party whose participation is coerced.  The first two
are informed and consenting, the third is not.  Thus, it's a coerced transac-
tion in that respect, and thus all libertarians support prohibition of it.
It has nothing to do with ignoring the point, it has everything to do with
your point being trivial.

}>Not all utility increasing is beneficial
}>}to society as a whole or to anyone other than the immediate participants. That
}>}is why completely free, unregulated markets are not appropriate in complex
}>}societies with non-ideal participants and competing interests.
}>
}>Wrong, but where to begin refutation?  Some literacy in Austrian theory is
}>required here.
}
}  Cut the self-important hand-waving crap and make your point to us poor,
}ignorant slobs or just admit you don't have one.

Very well.  It is precisely because of the complexity of human society that
its management is beyond the powers of any central planners or regulators,
as economists like Friedrich Hayek have been pointing out for over half a
century now.

It is precisely because of the false assumptions of ideal participants and
perfect information that prices must be left to transmit information to so
many otherwise ignorant participants, as Hayek described in his classic
essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society," published in the 1940s.

It is precisely because some short-term interests are in conflict that
libertarians since Frederic Bastiat have been arguing that force and fraud
must be prohibited, at least singe the 1840s.

Thus it appears that you are making claims based upon premises refuted as
far back as over a century and a half ago.  I suggest to you that there may
be less grounds for your claims to rest upon than you so blithely assumed,
and, furthermore, that you were quite rude to accuse me of hand-waving or
not having a point to make; which would mean that you owe me an apology.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2160 alt.politics.libertarian:1703
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: free market
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:56:29 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1992Nov11.132510.8306@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.174828.3583@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>}
>}And a fundamental problem with a completely free market is that it
>}tends towards conditions in which a free market does not thrive -
>}concentration of power - irrespective of government influence.
>
>What?  You must be operating with a definition of laissez-faire that deviates
>from that used in the economics literature I'm familiar with.  Care to
>elaborate?
>
A central requirement of laissez faire is that no participant in the
economy be large enough to single-handedly influence the market.  On
the ideal assumption that a system can start with such a condition,
the unregulated market will permit the concentration of resources so
that single players will develop such influence.  There
are a variety of ways they can do so.  The most relevant for the
purposes of this discussion is simply via intelligence and market
savvy.  Such a person is certainly deserving of wealth but their
economic power then provides them with the ability to distort the
market and control it.  It is only a matter of time until one such
person chooses to distort competition in order to protect their
wealth and power.  Its much easier than continuing to struggle within
the confines of the market.

The difference from your economics literature is that classical
economics assumes that no such concentration could take place.  This
is a belief that (IMHO), is no less utopian than Marx's beliefs
about private propery (or lack thereof), and is not supported by
a study of history.
>
>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


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2111 alt.politics.elections:22723 talk.politics.misc:58312
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Marrou < 0.3%. The *REAL* reason...
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:47:32 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Nov5.131147.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes:
>   In today's SF Chronicle, the following strange statistics were
>   reported:-
>
>   Calif Senate `long seat'		- Genis		220,000
>   Calif Senate `short seat'		- Brodie	210,000
>   Calif totals for president		- Marrou	 44,000
>
>
>   Am I expected to believe that libertarians were so distressed with
>   Marrou that 4 out of 5 of them couldn't bring themselves to vote
>   for him, and as a consequence, voted for the offical candidates?

No.  You it means that there were many, many people who were so
disgusted by the choices offered in the senate races that they were
willing to cast a protest vote for anybody else, regardless of whether
or not they were familiar with the candidate.

I personally believe that June Genis's race was one of the great
missed opportunities of the Libertarian party.  Nearly everybody I
talked to (democrats, republicans, and independents, as well as
libertarians) was appalled at the choice between Herschenson and
Boxer.  Several of them, at my recommendation, voted for Genis.  With
a decently funded campaign, this could have been a close three way
race.

[To forestall objectsions that I have received in the past, I should
state again, that I am not putting down June's effort nor that of her
staff.  They did the best they could with the budget they had.]

Evan Kirshenbaum
    HP Laboratories
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U
    Palo Alto, CA  94304

    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
    (415)857-7572
From: ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: semi-automatic weapons
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:50:09 GMT
Organization: GE Corp. Research & Development, Schenectady, NY

In the week before the election, the subject of Andre Marrou
happened to come up a number of times. Apparantly, he was
on National Public Radio recently (I missed it).

Of all the folks I spoke with, three of them had heard of
Marrou. All three knew about him due to the NPR interview
(seemingly great so far). All three of them are traditional
Democrats who aren't comfortable with Clinton. All three,
earlier in the year, were at least interested in the LP.

All three of them were firmly convinced that Andre Marrou
is a lunatic, because of some comments he made about the
right to own semi-automatic weapons. Apparantly, one reason
given was to protect ourselves from the government.

Now I am a Libertarian, and voted for Marrou, so don't
flame me. But it seems that to universally offend
potential voters (who agree with other Libertarian positions)
by making a paranoid-sounding comment about semi-automatic
weapons on NPR was rather short sighted.

Just my $0.02.

Ed Stokes
ebstokes@crd.ge.com