HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Questions about libertarianism
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:07:46 GMT
	<BrpE77.1y3@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com>
	<1992Jul22.001630.13234@mumbo.apple.com>
	<1992Jul22.133510.28356@Veritas.COM>
	<1992Jul23.165048.676@mumbo.apple.com>
Followup-To: talk.environment
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU


   In article <1992Jul22.133510.28356@Veritas.COM>, oleg@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
   > 
   > wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes) writes:
   > >The principle was that when people made improvements
   > >to land, they should benefit by acquiring ownership rights.
   > 
   > What sort of "improvement" can you do to the wilderness that is supposed to
   > stay untouched to preserve natural wildlife habitats?

Homesteading is a possible solution to the problem of determining the
initial owner of each piece of property.  I believe that right now all
of the property in the US is owned, so the homesteading issue isn't
relevant.  The old-growth forest wasn't acquired by homesteading, but
it was acquired by someone somehow.

Followup to talk.environment.
--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes)
Subject: Re: Questions about libertarianism
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:16:30 GMT
Organization: Apple

In article <BrpE77.1y3@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com>, dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Jul20.111219.15113@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
> >
> >land.  Private land clear-cutting, which has been replaced by tree
> >farming, produced massive benefits in affordable housing that outweighed
> >the environmental costs, but as the trees were consumed there
> 
> In what sense did the benefits outweigh the costs? 

Let's not forget that the costs were made artificially low by the US
Government, in the form of the US Forest Service.  (Is that "service,"
as in what a stallion does to a mare?)  The Forest Service built about
342,000 miles of roads in our national forests - more than eight times
the total mileage of the US Interstate Highway System.

These roads, primarily designed to facilitate logging, extend into the
ecologically fragile backcountry of the Rocky Mountains and Alaska, where
they are causing massie soil erosion, damaging trout and salmon fisheries,
and causing other environmental harm.

In many cases, the costs of these logging activities far exceed any
commercial benefit from the timber acquired; so this environmental
destruction would not have occurred in the absence of government
subsidies.

[Source: John Baden, "Destroying the Environment: Government Mismanagement
of Our Natural Resources," National Center for Policy Analysis, NCPA Policy
Report No. 24, October 1986]

Because of National Park Service (same question as above) policies,
the white-tailed deer, mountain lion, lynx, wolverine, and fisher all
have vanished from Yellowstone National Park, and the Rocky Mountain
gray wolf is now extinct.  The Park Service is also responsible for a
serious decline in the numbers of black bears, grizzlies, bighorn sheep,
mule deer, and beaver in Yellowstone.  [Chase, Playing God in Yellowstone]

> how does the Libertarian party address the simple reality that private
> owners simply cannot AFFORD to buy all this property within a short peroid
> of time, and that if the regulations are axed no one will WANT to after said
> property is destroyed?

We need to create opportunities for homesteading and adoption.
Homesteading was the method used to administer the largest privatization
of land in history.  The principle was that when people made improvements
to land, they should benefit by acquiring ownership rights.

These techniques need to be expanded to encourage people to to protect
and defend endangered fish and wildlife which would otherwise be abandoned
to the "commons."

> My problem with the Libertarians is that they consistently ignore 
> all but certain aspects of a problem, namely, those which support 
> their theories (perhaps dogma would be a better word).

Look carefully: is that a mirror you're peering into?   ;-)

John Wilkes   <wilkes@apple.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt)
Subject: Re: Libertarian ticket supported on Rush Limbaugh show
Organization: 250 Million Pet Rocks
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:56:15 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

shapiro@trade.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
>szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes...
>>They also had on several 
>>Bush supporters, so perhaps a larger number of Libertarian callers will 
>>show that Rush's fans either support or are interested in learning about 
>>the Libertarian phenomenon.
> 
>Since when is a party that is 20 years old considered a 'phenomenon'?
>
>The democrats and republicans have been trying to suppress the libertarian
>party since the beginning. Apparently they take it seriously.

What evidence is there that the two parties have tried to "suppress"
the Libertarians specifically?  I've never heard so much of a peep
of recognition towards the Libs from them.  

--
Wayne Tvedt                                     wayne@mathematik.uni-bremen.de
                                              ...fold globally, expand locally
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: paul@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Greg Paul)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Followup-To: alt.politics.marrou
Reply-To: paul@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Greg Paul)
Organization: Arizona State University, College of Engineering
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:25:28 GMT

In article <Bs60Iz.FKL@acsu.buffalo.edu> blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger) writes:
>[ Libertarian view deleted.. ]
>
>I do have an example of a different premise, my housemate's view,
>she believes that people are basically helpless and need to
>be looked after by a strong central government.
>

   Sounds like your friend is a democrat....

>
>Where do you stand?  (Not rhetorical nor aimed at one specific person)
>
>-- 
>************************************************************************
>Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
># Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
>Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.


--
========================== Will be President for food ==========================
Greg Paul  (Mouser)		  |  paul@enuxha.eas.asu.edu  GO SPARTANS!!
MSCS student, Insight technician  |     Triangle Fraternity
____________ "My words but a whisper, your deafness a shout..." -JT ____________
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:301 alt.politics.elections:9370
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Message to Libertarians (Was: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King)
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:48:29 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Jul29.061408.28701@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

Please read and remember the .signature.

>}Oh, you have wounded me!  I have very few prejudices, actually.  The
>}biggest problem is that I am intolerant of fools.  That is why I have
>}such a low tolerance level for Libertarians.
>
>Wounding you wasn't my intention.  I was honestly advising you of an apparent
>flaw in your character which you may wish to redress.
>
>Intolerance is another vice.  However, you seem too narrow-mindedly interested
>in being insulting than in informing us or being informed.You seem exclusively
>interested in being argumentative, which is a waste of my precious time.
>
>
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>
>"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
>oneself and others." - Voltaire

We aren't here to win a flame-fest.  As Voltaire says in your quote," True
greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others."  And as the Libertarian presidential candidate
says, (paraphrased) libertarianism is easily accepted by most people when it is
explained in a proper fashion.

I contend that those two men are saying the same thing.  Be polite, be
informative, never be drawn or tripped into bickering.  Present your
philosophy as best it can be and let people judge it on its merit, not
on your ability to jeer at your fellow debater.

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: What's a person? (was Re: Why is the LP platform pro-choice...)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:37:48 GMT

In article <TSF.92Jul21094907@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU>, tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes:
> In article <Brpu6u.5By@acsu.buffalo.edu> sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Philandros) writes:
> 
>    I personally believe that the appearance of brain wave activity is a
>    good cut-off point for abortions.  That way, murder only applies to a
>    PERSON.  What better way to determine personhood other than brain wave
>    activity?  
> 
> People who have taken large doses of barbiturates don't have brain
> waves, but they can sometimes recover consciousness without brain
> damage.  I think that looking for physiological signs of personhood is
> a bad idea.  If we look for behavioral signs instead, we run a chance
> of finding a way to make a rational choice, because a person's
> behavior makes a difference to our society but subtle physiological
> signs don't.
> 
> I propose this criterion: Something is a person if you can negotiate
> with it.
> 
> Or, we can try this: Something is a person if it can understand
> property rights.

  Well, this idea has appeal since it would give us a legal right 
to cut off all of congress's life support :-). However, I think 
this proposal is flawed since you clearly cannot negotiate with
an infant and it certainly does not understand property rights.
An infant is certainly a person IMHO. 
  Perhaps, a better tact would be that a person is person if they
have the _potential_ of obtainting these values. Here a child with
only a brain stem would not meet this criteria, but a "normal" child
would. Obviously, any such definitions should be *very* inclusive and
always err toward "competent until proven incompetent".
  This of course does not address Mark's fundamental issue wrt to
abortion. I think that he is taking the wrong side of the argument
when determining personhood. The issue of whether a fetus is a
person is moot, because no person has the right to enslave another
person for whatever reason. Therefore, a woman should always have
the right to her own body. When a child is born, it does not the
same potential of enslavement, therefore it should be murder to kill 
the child after birth. An implicit contract with the child (and the
possibility to break that contract) is not in any respect on the
same moral level as enslavement.
  For those who would say that the fact you engaged in sex gives that
implicit contract, I ask what remedies the mother has to break it when
it was not her intent to enter into that contract. If the mother has no
options, it is enslavement.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: Building Codes - was Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co., New York, NY
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:02:30 GMT

In article <27JUL199216170781@rosie.uh.edu> st1g9@rosie.uh.edu (Lee Preimesberger) writes:

>#>Of course not.  Building codes are supposed to ensure safety, not drive up
>#>the cost of housing, but the simple fact is that they fail on both counts.
># 
>#No, it's not a "simple fact" that building codes fail to ensure safety.  Please
>#enlighten me.

more data points....

The builder who built my home either paid off the inspector or the
inspector was asleep. But inspectors are held harmless if they screw up.
My house had major construction flaws (that a warranty luckily covered) - why 
didn't the towns building inspector catch it at time of construction?

Friends of mine had a bad septic installed and took the inspector and
builder to court - and won. His argument: This man built it and that
man approved it and it doesn't work.

Years later, I had an electrical inspector tell me an electrical box was 
the wrong type but couldn't tell me where to get the proper one.
We finally cleared it up....after heated discussions.

I get nervous when the government wants to 'help' me.

Joe
joec@morgan.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:39:32 GMT

tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes:
>It is neccessary to consider all the alternatives before rejecting any
>one of them.  The relevant alternative here is that these people live
>out-of-doors, and you need to argue that they'll be less safe in
>unregulated housing than they would be when they're living
>out-of-doors, if that's the conclusion you want to reach.


Let's make it even easier - all we need to argue is that these people
would rather live in-doors in unregulated housing than out of doors.
How do we know?  Well, give them the option.  If they don't think so,
they'll continue to live on the streets.  Otherwise they'll build
their own housing or move into housing that hasn't gone through all
the union and government graft processes.
-- 
Sex is a natural bodily process, like a stroke.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:164 alt.politics.elections:9095
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Perot supporters -- we can still take the country back
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:49:53 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <rdippold.711747104@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

>I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!

   It isn't clear that you have much choice.  I mean voting for
   say, Marrou/Lord is not likely to noticably change the outcome 
   (caveat: I could be wrong) and therefore when the election is
   over you will have to continue to "take it".   



---peter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Nomination for LP Mascot 
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:01:40 GMT


I originally suggested a turtle.  Someone whose name a I can't remember
suggested that a tortoise would be more appropriate.

When I brought this up to my wife she suggested Ben Franklin's choice
for a national symbol:  the turkey.  In the context that Franklin
first suggested it, the turkey makes a lot of sense.  Now, however,
I'm not sure.  Seems to me that the turkey is more an object of
humor than it once was.
-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party  
  Andre Marrou    Nancy Lord for  | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
  for President   Vice-President  | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:144 alt.politics.elections:9028
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord in '92!
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:27:06 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Jul22.180009.12475@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>In article <rl=mt+b.scotty@netcom.com> scotty@netcom.com (J Scott Peter) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul6.204130.27417@babbage.ece.uc.edu> dhollind@don.ece.uc.edu (David Y Hollinden) writes:
>> [Re Andre Marrous's 10-point plan]
>>>Number one: Repeal the personal income tax and abolish the IRS.
>> ...
>>>Number ten: Privatize education, charitize welfare, and allow a choice in
>>>all matters.
>>
>>These points are are totally impractical for the near future.  The income
>>tax cannot be abolished just like that.  There has to be some sort of
>>gradual and workable plan, that would take place over many years (much
>>more than the term of a president).  Same goes for abolishing welfare, to
>>a lesser extent.
>
>When Marrou spoke in NY, a few months ago, he presented a gradual, workable
>plan for doing just that!  Marrou's plan was non-disruptive, but would not
>take as many years as you think.
>
>I can't quote exact details, but here are a few of the points I recall.
>He noted that attrition from Federal jobs is about 7-10%, and proposed 
>to reduce the Federal payroll by that amounbt without layoffs.  He gave
>examples of Federal property that could be sold immediately, to retire 
>the deficit.  (One example was a golf course in the middle of San Francisco.)
>Wiping out the debt would eliminate new Federal spending for interest
>on the debt -- that amount alone would nearly eliminate the need for
>a personal income tax!  The revenues from selling and privatizing
>various Federal businesses would be enormous, and the new private
>businesses would pay taxes, too!

>
THis selling off of gov't industry was the key plank of Margaret
Thatcher's cure for the UK.  We all can see how well it has worked
there.......NOT.    People just made alot of profit on the
privatizing of industry but can't say it has helped the UK
become a stronger, industrial country.  Hey, Jaguar is now
owned by some American company, so much for Buying British cars
for Princess Di.  Seriously, privatization theories are usually
just that -- theories, and dont usually do what all their
proponents like Thatcher would claim.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 07:31:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.195916.18637@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
}>Those pesky codes aren't designed to drive up
}>the cost of housing, they're there to ensure safety. 
}
}It doesn't matter what they are designed to do; it matters what they
}actually do.  Plumbing and electrical codes, etc. are designed 
}for middle class pocketbooks; zoning is often designed by existing 
}home dwellers to prevent new construction.  These make it impossible to 
}build reasonable housing that is affordable to the poor.  Well-intentioned 
}government intervention again causes huge problems, because we assume
}they are doing what we want them to do instead of what we are actually 
}doing.

Well said, Nick, but I just remembered that these interventions actually
were designed to increase housing prices.  In the late 1960s, there was a
housing glut.  Statists didn't like this, because it kept property owners
from improving their property, including meeting their safety standards.  Many
simply abandoned buildings rather than lose money doing so.

So, the statists coercively reduced housing supply through such things as
"urban renewal," which cynics called "negro removal," redevelopment agencies,
zoning restrictions (large-lot, moratoriums, ad nauseum), etc.  This not
only cut off the bottom rungs of the housing ladder, which consisted of such
things as Single Resident Occupancy (SRO) hotels, but also inflated the price
of remaining housing, making it profitable or affordable for property owners
to upgrade their buildings to meet the statists standards.

Whether or not such measures actually made for safer housing is unknown to
me, but this certainly was unconstitutional violation of individual rights.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Subject: Re: What's a person? (was Re: Why is the LP platform pro-choice...)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 00:54:51 GMT


In article <1992Jul27.233115.10691@Veritas.COM>, oleg@Veritas.COM writes:

[...]

> There are some (tribal non-technological) cultures that do not understand
> property rights as the Western Europeans do, a la the oft-sited "How can 
> anyone own the land?" confusion of the nomadic tribes when encountering the 
> property claims.  

(I don't want to get into the abortion debate, however...)  It has
already been pointed out that cultures that do not associate property 
rights with land ususally live under conditions where land is not a 
scarce resource.  Resources that are scarce (such as food) do have 
property rights associated with them.  And although there are cultures 
that associate high prestige and honor with the act of giving,
even in these cultures you can only give what you rightfully own.

thant

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Nomination for LP Mascot 
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason steiner)
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:15:20 EST

nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
> > chrispi@microsoft.com (Chris Pirih) writes:
> >
> > Do the Libertarians have a mascot?  Is anybody using the
> > bull moose?
> 
> How about the "Don't tread on me" copperhead?

i'll second this. it's got style, is recognizable & doesn't have the
"cute" factor of a beaver, porcupine, or turtle. there are negative
connotations to the snake, but the "Don't tread on me" logo is
too good to ignore.

jason "well, don't." steiner

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,
`, "Get off the cross. We need the wood." steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections