HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: erik@westworld.esd.sgi.com (Erik Fortune)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:55:12 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Oct2.003536.159@cs.su.oz.au>, jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.060245.366@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> |> Don't be obtuse!  Let's list false assumptions here: 1) libertarians support
> |> private police kicking in people's doors; 2) Most people will be in the
> |> position of accepting such a deal or starving; 3) it's possible to change the
> |> fact that an inevitable few people will be in this position; 4) there's some
> |> better way to minimize this occurrence than laissez-faire.
> 
> 1) can't comment
> 2) starvation is still the rule worldwide (perhaps not in your precious U.S.)
> 3) Perhaps not, but trying gives me something to do.
> 4) perhaps there is. It's really big of you to blindly dismiss every view 
> 	except your own.
> 
> 	james

2) Food production is not the problem.  We currently (as a species) produce
   more food than we can eat.   The vast majority of the deaths by starvation
   in the world are caused by governments preventing food from getting from
   to some sub-group they don't like or by governments forcibly moving people
   from land that can support them to land that can't.

   Seriously.  If today's world were libertarian, famine would be (almost) 
   non-existent.

3) I have no problem with your trying to help the few percent who can't take
   care of themselves.  I do have a problem when these attempts to help this
   small minority screw the rest of us.   Which they do nearly every time.

4) I'm happy to debate the *possibility* that there is another way, but most 
   people work from the *assumption* that there is.  There is a vast 
   difference between the two points of view.

-- Erik
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: voting conscience
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:43:37 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Voting one's conscience is a morally good thing.

Yet, if the results are bad, perhaps the action should be avoided.

Voting for anyone but Clinton helps GHWB stay in office.

yikes



Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:500 alt.society.anarchy:313
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:54:08 GMT

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
>>Question to the "anarcho"-capitalists and "libertarians" at large:
>>
>>Whence the seemingly unshakeable faith in the inability of the private
>>sector to coerce?
>>
>>Seems to me in a buyers' market or sellers' market the sellers or
>>buyers respectively get the short end of the deal.  Market leverage is
>>Power.  There are all kinds of things I would do differently if not for
>>its existence, and I believe I would be freer absent of it.

>Whenever two people make an agreement in the free market, they are
>both engaging in a voluntary act. You want my $10 more than you want
                    *********
>the digital watch you are selling; I want the digital watch more than
>I want my $10. After the transaction is complete, we are both happier
>than when we started. Note that there are nothing but voluntary acts
>involved here.

This classical approach is based on the assumption that utility is static.
That is, if I make a transaction my utility may change, but if I don't it
will remain the same.  Tell that to someone deciding whether to buy heat,
food, electricity, etc.

Now you may make the claim that a truly free market would make these
commodities competitive and non-coercive, but that's a utilitarian conjecture
about the end result, far removed from this categorical type of argument.

I'm sympathetic to many libertarian arguments, because I think the world
would be a better place for most without government interference in many areas.
But if you're going to base your legitimacy on simplistic categorical arguments
like this, you can count me out.
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:577 alt.society.anarchy:357
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: You can't, and shouldn't TRY, to control the economy.
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:16:49 GMT
 <parvin1.718324692@husc11> <1992Oct6.055445.4318@leland.Stanford.EDU> <parvin1.718382643@husc11>

adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai) writes:

>In article <parvin1.718324692@husc11> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:

>>Now of course there may be signifiant bad results from an action that we can
>>predict, and these may outweigh the positives.  This seems to be the main
>>utilitarian argument of the Lib. party.
>>
>>Point is, we DO know some effects, both good and bad, of certain policies.
>>I tend to agree with you insofar as these changes may not be as great or
>>lasting as they appear.  But to dismiss all of our ability to change the
>>economy is going a bit too far, IMHO.
>>-- 
>>===========================================================================
>>Douglas Parvin
>>parvin1@husc.harvard.edu


>There are a number of points to be examined:

>1. Some people suffer the good effects, some suffer the bad effects, even
>   when there is a net surplus produced. Those who suffer are never
>   compensated. So, its O.K. for I.B.M. to get a 5 billion dollar 
>   contract from the government, but it may not be so good for me: thats
>   my money going to I.B.M.'s profit line.

>2. The government is ROBBING me to try this. I didn't consent to them
>   using my money. If it said "look we don't exactly whats going to
>   happen here, but if you contribute, you might be better off", then
>   I may go along.(probably not, what do you think)

You missed my point.  When the government gives 5 billion dollars to IBM,
we KNOW an immediate bad effect (others in the nation are out 5 billion).
I was responding to the poster's assertion that random effects, the
"butterfly effect" as he put it, are necessarily bad.  Your losing money
in this example you give is by no means unexpected.  If I turn on a fan to cool
my home, the wind currents may eventually cause a hurricaine to ravage
Florida.  Maybe the whole world will change, but I still think it's
reasonable to keep myself cool.

If you question the weather analogy. . .good!  I don't believe it either,
and that was my point from the beginning.  There are many types of arguments
pro/con government interference.  I was responding to a specific argument,
which, BTW, I believe is weaker than others to support your position.
Read the post I was responding to, and then ask yourself how your statements 
support it.  I don't think you'll find a connection.

This is supposed to be a rational forum; we should be able to make specific
points on specific arguments, secure in the understanding that each exchange
doesn't in itself determine the fate of libertarianism. 
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
From: rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning)
Subject: Illiteracy is not an unthinkable option.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 20:25:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

The subject of simply abolishing private education has been raised. This is
not as horrific as commonly thought for 2 reasons.

First, there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. In a society with
as many sources of information as we have, most people aren't completely
ignorant, i.e. they have a fair amount of common knowledge to build on
whatever their state of literacy.

Second, South American and African countries have considerable experience in
adult literacy programs. I have read that it only requires about 90 hours of
classroom instruction to educate a South American peasant (not the most
sophisticated group imaginable) to the level where they can continue their
education on their own. This is using blackboards and other primitive
technology.

So, I conclude that we would certainly save time and money by abolishing
a system which often takes 12 years to turn out complete illiterates.
Any one of them which needs an education at that time would be much further
head because they wouldn't have been trained to expect nothing of themselves
and to hate school.

I also know a woman who never attended school. She learned everything from
occasional instruction at home and a lot of reading. She went through college
with a few remedial courses at the beginning.

Does anyone have any other evidence in this regard ?
-- 
Lew Glendenning		rlglende@netcom.com	408-245-7488

"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."	Nils Bohr (or somebody like that).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: adams@liszt.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: You can't, and shouldn't TRY, to control the economy.
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:33:54 GMT

In article <qoigbu0@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>
>Mathematics is the science of measurement.  

Mathematics is not a science.  Science formulates theories and substantiates those
theories with empirical evidence.  Mathematics states axioms then *proves* theorems 
based on definitions and the axioms.  Hopefully these theorems will be useful.


>The fundamental flaw with
>mathematical economics is that what is being measured (value) is
>subjective, ordinal (as opposed to cardinal), and unconserved.  

Are you being serious here?  Since when does a mathematical model have to measure only
objective, ordinal (whatever you mean by that), and conserved quantities.

>It may
>not be the intent of the mathematical economist to 'merely' encode past
>economic events, but that is all that can be logically said about the
>'success' of an economic model independent of insight into human action.

The mathematics can include insight into human action.  This is the field of
utility theory which mathematically models human behavior.

-Adam
From: young@wattle.dg.oz (Philip Young)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 30 Sep 92 08:06:45 GMT
Organization: Data General Australia

I am by no means a true believer - having been through Christianity and
Socialism I see no need to incur strike three - but am (un?)fairly  sympathetic
to the Libertarian view of the world, if somewhat undereducated in the party
line.  Anyway, my 1.5 Yen's worth ...

In article <4232@winnie.fit.edu>, baggs@zach.fit.edu ( Rhoda A. Baggs) writes:

|> 
|> 3)  Can somebody in the know give details on their education-reform
|>     point?  A "voucher system" is mentioned but not explained.

A voucher system for education was explained fairly well in a book called
`Centre Forward' by Bryce Rhodes (I think) ca. 1985.  Basically, one's 
educational "rights" are assigned a $$ value, based on cost of provision, and
a voucher is issued to each eligible person (or whoever their keeper is). 
This voucher can then be handed back to the government for a free education,
or given to a private school (etc.), along with cash to pay their premium. The
private organization would be reimbursed by the govt. for the vouchers they 
had collected.  Sounds like a reasonable system - max. freedom of choice, with
everybody getting at least the level of education dictated by the politics and
passions of the day.
  

|> 
|> 5)  Any discussion on exactly how we really can exist without NO income
|>     tax?  

Easy - an outgoing tax (VAT to the poms, GST to the rest of us).  Remember,
excepting only the last two centuries, human societies have gotten on quite
nicely thank you without any income tax.  The story I heard (maybe apocryphal)
is that this was a "temporary measure" introduced (by the British) to fund the
Napoleonic wars ... and bad news spreads. 
 


-- 
Philip R. Young                  | Definitely my own opinions, but they are       
Data General Australia Pty. Ltd. | public domaain, so feel free to adopt them.
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:27:18 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Oct4103839@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
}Well, if Mark Wilson is a libertarian then there's one.  I'd be
}interested to know other libs who do.  I would have thought it an
}obvious derivation fromt he central positions.
}
}Of course, Libs aren't Objectivists.

Not quite.  There are Objectivist libertarians, like me, there are anti-
Libertarian Objectivists, anti-Objectivist libertarians, and "believers of
either faith" who are neutral to the other.

However, I'd be even more surprised to find an Objectivist who favored
anti-trust legislation than to find a libertarian!  Rand criticized such
nonsense strongly.


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
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:11:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep29.211553.26045@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes...
>Question to the "anarcho"-capitalists and "libertarians" at large:
> 
>Whence the seemingly unshakeable faith in the inability of the private
>sector to coerce?

	It depends on your definition of coercion.  Libertarians do not
believe that money is not influential.  Of course it is.  However, libertarians
tend to view market forces and competition as taming elements.  Governments
are much more difficult to tame, and have access to the power of the gun.

> 
>Seems to me in a buyers' market or sellers' market the sellers or
>buyers respectively get the short end of the deal.  Market leverage is
>Power.  There are all kinds of things I would do differently if not for
>its existence, and I believe I would be freer absent of it.
> 
>I have a positive attitude about exchanging equal value for equal value,
>IF I can approach my adversary on an equal footing.

	For the record, I believe it is IMPOSSIBLE, no matter what the
social system (anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, democratic, republican,
socialist, communist, facist, Big Brother, etc), to put everyone on
"an equal footing".  Seriously.  I don't view the free market as "perfect",
but rather as a much better alternative to government intervention.

> 
> 
>Note:  Credit where credit's due.  I feel I understand the Libertarian
>Party well enough to know I emphatically don't support it, but it is the
>only American political party that isn't an insult to my intelligence.
>That includes the other third parties.  You folks challenge me...keep it
>up.

	We certainly will.  If nothing else, libertarians are tireless
supporters of their ideas.  ;^)

> 
> 
> 
>Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us
> 
>Keep the Aspidistra Flying!

Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Leonard Dickens Question about School Costs
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:14:13 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Originator: lando@tango

Leon Dickens writes:
>Taxes, I suppose.  (Let us be realistic.  Income taxes are not
>vanishing in the forseeable future, especially with the huge deficit
>the bastards have run up on us.)  I have seen estimates on this group
>that public schools currently cost 6-9K/pupil/year, and private ones
>are less.  Anyone have a pointer on real data on this?  


I have some stats from KGO radio, an  AM station with a news/talk show format.

In Iowa, it costs $4400 to educate a high school student.  They have
the highest SAT scores in the nation.

In Washington D. C., it costs $7000+ to education a high school student
and they have the _lowest_ SAT scores in the nation.

States such as New York and New Jersy spend more than $8000 per student/year
and rank in the bottom 30 range and bottom 40 range respectively.

So, the range that you estimated was resonable.

BTW, this data should be made to Slick Willie to show him that the quality of
education is not necessarily tied to the amount of funding that goes
into education.   Keep in mind that "Slick" wants to raise taxes by
-- 
"He is the best friend of American liberty who is most sincere and active
 in promoting pure and undefiled religion." John Witherspoon, signer of the
 Declaration of Independence.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Reply-To: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:40:41 GMT

In article <9421@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>Even if minor party candidates do not win, they do affect the debate.
>The 1930's socialist party never came close to winning the presidency
>either, but the entirety of their platform has since been adopted by one
>or both major parties.
>

Oh if I had $0.01 for every time I heard this line.



Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
From: bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Force and tax collection.
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:07:30 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <19qbvoINNerc@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
|> 
|> "Market controlled prices" are not necessarily a benefit.  I'll give you
|> an example: diamonds.  Diamonds are essentially a monopoly controlled by
|> DeBeers.  Through PRIVATE marketing and control of supply, the prices have
|> been kept artificially high.  This benefits nobody except for the owners
|> of DeBeers: all the customers who purchase diamonds could have spent less
|> on their diamonds if the cartel was broken.  The free market is operating
|> here based on a set of circumstances determined by an accident of history.
|> A different accident of history, resulting in competition between producers
|> could have satisfied customers just as thoroughly, but at a lower price.
|> Libertarianism offers no solution for preventing such monopolies from
|> arising or for breaking their power.
|> 

Bad example.  DeBeers won't arrest you at JFK for trying to bring diamonds
into the country if you are not a gem courier.  The US Government will.
You can go to a diamond broker in Amsterdam and buy diamonds at something
much closer to their real value.  You can even go to South Africa (or other
places) and dig your own.  What you can't do is bring them into the country.
And as I said, it isn't DeBeers that is going to meet you at customs.
The artificially high prices for things like gems are held high by governments
who are willing to support these monopolies, not by any concept of a free
market.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: Please let Marrou debate! -- and CNN's Crossfire
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:24:37 GMT

  If we translate the GOP minion's comment about it "not being necessary"
to invite Marrou to the debate into plain English, it means "We don't think
his presence will hurt the other Big Two candidate more than it hurts ours."

  That's the key to getting the LP into a debate in the real world of power
politics.  For instance, if the Democratic candidate in the 2000 election
gets the idea that the LP is going to drain a significant vote away from
the Republican candidate, he may well put on a fine show of taking the moral
high ground in favor of inviting the Libertarian candidate to the debate.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:461 alt.society.anarchy:284
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:16:35 GMT
	<1992Sep29.223953.26882@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1992Sep30.091620.6641@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<9389@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
	<1992Oct1.094807.8167@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<9409@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM's message of 1 Oct 92 18:56:50 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|I don't know of any libertarians who support the elimination of anti-trust
|laws.  Except maybe the extreme anarchist wing.

I do.  I just asked one:

ME:  Are you a Libertarian?
HE:  Yes.
ME:  Do you support the repeal of anti-trust laws?
HE:  Yes.

Of course, he may be of the extreme anarchist wing (as opposed to the
non-extreme anarchist wing).  Wait, I'll ask him.

ME:  Do you consider yourself a part of the extreme anarchist wing?
HE:  No, I'm not an anarchist.

Oh, well. (I swear, this just happened as I typed it in--punctuation
mine).

<insert smilies and apologies for wasting bandwidth>




--
Peace.
          "Until the lions have their historians,
           tales of the hunted will always glorify the hunter."
                        - African proverb
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 15:40:47 EDT
From: <REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: TAPE TAX passed by Congress
Distribution: alt

  Not to make a serious issue a point of ridicule, but I was hoping
to read that congress had gone into self-taxing mode by passing a
RED TAPE TAX!  No such luck!

Jeff Andle   DoD #3005  1976 KZ900     REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
                                       jandle@wolf.eece.maine.edu
"THE LESSER OF 2 EVILS IS STILL EVIL!" - NANCY LORD, C-SPAN 9/21/92
Choose between "tax & spend" vs. "lie & spend"?  Get real!
"What, Exactly, it the point of a victimless felony?"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:595 alt.politics.marrou:1449