HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Crack Babies
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:57:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.223450.25052@cirrus.com> lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis) writes:

>During the "debate" on Sunday night, all the candidates present stated
>categorically that they were in favor of the continued criminalization of
>drugs.

>Both Bush and Clinton made references to babies crippled because of their
>mothers were addicted to cocaine.   I understand the Libertarian position
>on the individual's use of narcotics, but would you Libertarians consider
>a mother's actions as criminal negligence if she gave birth to baby
>damaged by drugs?

Since a libertarian society would be concerned with compensation rather than
punishment as such, what could be done except make the mother responsible for
the support of the baby?  One could impose conditions for this support, making
it harder to evade the responsibility, and putting restrictions on the mother's
future actions to keep the baby from becoming a public charge, or even
incarcerating the mother to prevent future babies from being born in this
state (if it can be shown that this is the cause), but the usual relatively
modern idea of punishment for crimes against society would not apply.

-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jwchas@eng.clemson.edu (jerry wayne chastain)
Subject: Questions about abortion and children's rights
Reply-To: jwchas@eng.clemson.edu
Organization: College of Engineering, Clemson Univ.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:11:03 GMT

Hello everyone.  After reading the LP Platform and talking about a few of the issues
with my wife I have several questions but I would prefer to pose them in groups, so
here is the first.

If my concept of a libertarian society is correct, the government would have a place
in protecting the rights of the individual.  If I am killed then the murderer would
be brought up on criminal charges by the state because he/she infringed on my rights.
Now, the platform states that "we support the right of women to make a personal choice
regarding the termination of pregnancy."  What I am concerned about is the case where
the fetus/child may be viable outside of the womb.  Does libertarian philosophy tell
us anything about whether a fetus/child one day before it is born is or is not a
person and therefore entitled to all of the rights and priviledges of a person?  At
what point does that fetus become a child and begin to have rights?  

The answer to this question may very well be that there is no easy answer.  I hope
that someone might be able to shed some light on the topic, though.

On a related note, the platform states first that children have rights and then that
"children who have not reached maturity need guardians to secure their rights and to
aid in the exercise of those rights."  The platform also states that "Whenever parents
or other guardians are unable or unwilling to care for their children, those guardians
have the right to seek other persons who are willing to assume guardianship, and 
children have the right to seek other guardians who place a higher value on their 
lives."  Now, to me all of this sounds very good until I consider a case where the
parents or guardians are abusing a child who is too young to seek other guardians. 
The parents, if they are abusing the child, are obviously infringing on the rights
of the child, however, because the child is not mature enough to make decisions or
to know that he or she has rights which are being infringed upon, the child has no
recourse that I can see.  Should the state have the power to act to protect the rights
of the child?  In what manner would this take place since there are to be no "wards of
the state"?

I would appreciate any comments on these issues.  Thanks in advance.

J. Wayne Chastain
chastain@kodak.com 
jwchas@eng.clemson.edu
Disclaimer:  The views presented here are my own and are not necessarily shared by
Eastman Kodak.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:10:46 GMT


  I for one think that the gov't should provide a minimum standard of
living for everyone (NOT). Of course if everyone is happy with the
minimum standard, who will be left to work (to provide taxes) for
everyone's minimum standard? This is clearly the big flaw with socialism.
From: plucky@ais.org (Chris Adamson)
Subject: Re: FREE BUS TO MSU DEBATE!
Keywords: marrou, libertarian, debate, msu
Organization: UMCC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:28:20 GMT

	I live right across the street from the Wharton Center (where
the debate will be held).  Could a well-informed on-line Libertarian
tell me where/when the protest will be gathering?  Thanks in advance...

    ============================================================
   / Chris Adamson    /     Honk if you helped kill JFK!      /
  / Michigan St. U.  /                                       /
 / Media Arts Prgm. / ------------------------------------- / 
/ M.A. student     / plucky@umcc.ais.org , plucky2@aol.com /
===========================================================
DISCLAIMER:  I'm sure MSU neither understands nor cares


Anecdotal post-script:  My very pro-Clinton adviser/boss said that
when she watched the VP debate with a friend, the friend responded to
Stockwhatever's semi-participation with the quote:  "If I were a
Libertarian, I'd be really pissed to see this."
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:48:40 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <parvin1.718922629@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu writes:

> No, that is not the implication.  There can be a range above B for which
> there is no profit to be made, when start-up costs are taken into 
> consideration.
> 
> It would be pure folly to expect a company to function without any profit,
> even if its start-up costs were subsidized.  [...]

But then we're back to the point that it costs the government just as
much to start up competition as it does for private industry.  Factoring
startup costs in to the costs of production (distributed over time
appropriately) moves the costs line up (to C in your terminology) for the
government as well as private industry.  The behavior of the graph as a
system does not change, and neither does the conclusion.


More specifically:

> [...]  Subsidizing start-up costs can
> allow both firms to operate profitably below this barrier C.
> And this cost is more than compensated for in consumer savings.

You need to compare consumer savings not with startup costs, but with
what those startup costs would have been worth had they been invested
elsewhere.  Whether consumers pay for those costs via higher prices or
through taxes makes no difference in terms of 'efficiency' of the market!
(That is, of course, if you assume the government has perfect information
and benevolent intentions.)

thant
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
Subject: Re: Crack Babies
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:06:12 GMT


  Even worse, I saw a news item (ABC I think) where crack babies were
shown in their usual shivering state. The announcer explained that the
shivering state was due to premature birth, quite frequent among crack
babies, and not due to crack as the gov't has propagandized.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: stu5s33@bnr.ca (Robert Nychka)
Subject: Re: World Food Prize Awarded for Eco-Friendl
Reply-To: stu5s33@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:35:26 GMT

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) says...

>I invite libertarians to cite ONE example of successful eradication of
>introduced pests or diseases by the private sector in any nation.

How about two.

Who do you go to when YOUR home gets cockroaches?  The Government?  No.

1> An Exterminator.


Who do you go to when YOU get sick?  The Government?  No. (hopefully not)

2> Your family Doctor. (And don't go telling me that the medical profession
   SHOULD be nationalized, I live in a country where it IS.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:25:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.211046.21609@bnr.ca>, rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham) writes:
>
>  I for one think that the gov't should provide a minimum standard of
>living for everyone (NOT). Of course if everyone is happy with the
>minimum standard, who will be left to work (to provide taxes) for
>everyone's minimum standard? This is clearly the big flaw with socialism.

I don't think the gov't should provide anything.

But I resent this idea that poverty is the only motivator.


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

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:38:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.041714.3674@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Oct04.232046.12197@CS.ORST.EDU> clarkmi@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Michael Clark) writes:
>}My question is this:  why do Libertarians favor a voucher system 
>}that still involves the coercive appropriation of taxes from the
>}citizenry for the funding of educational insitutions?  Why not
>}advocate a completely free market in education, without any 
>}government involvement?
>
>Because abolishing the public schools isn't possible now.  We favor ultimate
>privatization of both education delivery and financing.  Now we can only get
>delivery, which has been conclusively proven to work both in theory and in
>practice, so we favor this as an interim step in the right direction.

Indeed, vouchers themselves are a major improvement.  We should be
supporting a practical political program, not an idealistic goal
of eliminating all government overnight.

There are several schemes in the theory or experimental stage that would 
allow full private funding for students from all social backgrounds.  For 
example, "income shares" allows an investor to fund the education of a 
student in exchange for X% of the student's future wages above the average 
salary level (eg 10% of all wages above $30,0000), and is being hotly
debated in libertarian think-tank circles.  We don't start promoting them 
until they've been tried out and we can conclude they will bring a
major improvement in freedom, efficacy, or both.  Meanwhile, school
vouchers have been tried and work in many school districts, and it's
time to implement them nationwide.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Real world example of society profiting from startup subsidies.
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:12:03 GMT

In article <1bc1quINN75l@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}In article <1992Oct11.231600.24860@netcom.com> rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:
}
}This is one of the subjects where I agree with libertarians: supression of
}drugs such as marijuana is foolish.  Where I disagree is that I think
}marijuana and tobacco ought to be strongly regulated, perhaps by prescription
}only with a minimum age for recreational usage (such as 18 or 21.)

That's funny, no more prohibition than this has ever been passed.  The
original U.S. Congressional statute only stated that certain chemicals
were to be treated by the State so as to guarantee quality.  The Treasury
Department took this, passed only in order to bring us into compliance with
an international treaty, and decided by fiat to implement it as a prohibition.

Thomas Szazs makes the point in his latest book, "Our Right to Drugs," that
prescription laws are the paternalistic foundations of drug prohibition.
We don't have to get prescriptions to buy cars, why should we for anything
else?

}It would be nice to see fewer posts with "giggle factor" factoids like
}multiflora roses.  They are as bad as "golden fleece", "welfare queen",
}"trees pollute", and "self-made man" stories.  When they are true, they
}turn out to be exceptional cases at the ends of a bell curve: the question
}is what does the vast majority of the area of the bell curve represent.

True, but there's considerable anecdotal and scientific evidence that non-
artificial pollution, fraudulent welfare cases, and self-made men are "the
vast majority of the area of the bell curve" for health risks from pollution,
total welfare cases, and the wealthy.


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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.abortion
From: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan)
Subject: Adoption vs. Abortion (was Re: Please let Marrou debate!)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Fairbanks, Alaska...no wait, that's not right...
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:29:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.181029.12186@leland.Stanford.EDU>, adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai) writes...
> 
>If the right-to-lifers really cared about life, why don't they adopt
>some third world babies, there are millions dying which could be saved
>each year, including many in this country. Sometimes, I just don't 
>understand the right-to-lifeers' motivations, with so many millions
>that could be saved today, they are trying to savethe life of an unviable
>fetus that is only a few weeks old. 

At the risk of starting a major flame war, allow me to state that it's
been my experience through observation that pro-abortion individuals are
the ones who are only willing to adopt white, blond-haired, blue-eyed
children.  I see minority and disadvantaged children who are adopted,
but I only see them adopted by pro-life individuals.  However, maybe
someone can show to me that circumstances are different in other places
and/or with other people.

Sean, pro-life and proud

************************************************************************
Sean Patrick Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan*****Internet: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu
WWIVnet: 220@9704*CFN: au414*IRC: RadioKAOS, Aoxomoxoa*Ph: (907)488-8365
BITnet: FSSPR@ALASKA****Snail: P.O. Box 83381, Fairbanks, AK  99708-3381
***"I'm gonna Kentucky Fried Chickenize your prostate surgery." - Oswald
Bates, In Living Color***Disclaimer?  BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!***
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:776 alt.politics.perot:1952 alt.politics.reform:17
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.reform
Subject: DAN QUAYLE DRUG SCANDAL COVER-UP?
From: nenglish@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:20:06 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

Hi!
I need to know:   Am I crazy??
;^)

Fri. night, 10/09/92, 7pm, on CNN news, 20 min. Lead Story:

DAN QUAYLE DRUG SCANDAL COVER-UP

Complete story w/ tapes, transcripts, and witness;
Tapes and evidence pointed straight up to the Justice Dept. and James Baker;
Tapes were gotten by CNN thru the Freedom of Information Act.

Am *I* the only person who saw this story??
I have not heard a PEEP about it since it aired!

Has anyone seen this or heard anything about besides ME??

Nicole....

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: amc1@cec2.wustl.edu (Adam M. Costello)
Subject: children
Keywords: children
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:24:13 GMT

I'm new to Libertarianism (and libertarianism--what exactly is the
difference?)

I'd like to know more about the views on children.  I remember reading
in this newsgroup that a guardian of a child (such as a parent) should
be allowed to seek another person to assume responsibility for the
child.  But what if the guardian is unable to find anyone?  Is the
guardian obligated to take care of the child?  Even if the guardian is
able to find someone, is it sufficient that the guardian find someone
who is willing to take care of the child, or must the guardian find
someone who is willing and able to take care of the child at least as
effectively as the guardian could do it?

Thanks,
AMC

P.S. I'm very happy to see that capitalism is not dead in American
     politics, although it is unfortunately on the defensive.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: dave@lynx.mn.org (David Messer)
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Organization: Lynx Data Systems
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 05:39:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct04.232046.12197@CS.ORST.EDU> clarkmi@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Michael Clark) writes:
 >
 >My question is this:  why do Libertarians favor a voucher system 
 >that still involves the coercive appropriation of taxes from the
 >citizenry for the funding of educational insitutions?  Why not
 >advocate a completely free market in education, without any 
 >government involvement?

I think the voucher system is thought of as an intermediate step to a
true free-market education system.  Certainly the platform advocates
such a system.
-- 
Vote for Bush!                       | David Messer       dave@lynx.mn.org -or-
    He's been sick.                  | Lynx Data Systems  ..!tcnet!lynxds!dave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: ask@sei.cmu.edu (Alan Koch)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Keywords: abortion,platform
Organization: The Software Engineering Institute
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:18:08 GMT


Sorry, I forgot about the second part.

In article <1992Oct14.112134.26220@hemlock.cray.com>, khj@cray.com (Ken Jopp) writes:
|> 
|> Consider:  If my son needs a kidney transplant to live, and I 
|> am the only available donor, should I be forced by law to give 
|> the kidney?  
|> 
|> So why should a woman be forced by law to give of her body 
|> to sustain a fetus?

You are right about this delema.  I believe that moral obligation and legal
obligation diverge in this sort of circumstance.  Donating is the morally
correct thing to do, but legal requirements to do so would be inappropriate.

BUT, this still differs from the mother/fetus question.  The mother did not
cause the child to need a kidney transplant, nor should she have expected one
to ever be necessary at the point where she decided to have a son.  Pregnancy
is totally voluntary (except in the case of rape), and carrying to (near) term
is ALWAYS necessary to insure the child's viability.

Sorry, your argument falls short.

ask@sei.cmu.edu

Alan S. Koch
Software Engineering Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA  15213
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: voting conscience
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:45:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.124337.7315@iscsvax.uni.edu>, fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> 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

Yikes? You'd prefer Clinton in office? 
Yikes!
--Ray Cote
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:12:28 GMT
 <parvin1.718418434@husc11> <7054@transfer.stratus.com> <parvin1.718491105@husc11> <7122@transfer.stratus.com>

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <parvin1.718491105@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>> >> So, if the start-up costs are such that competition won't occur, and if
>> >> the entrenched company is making relatively enormous profits, I don't
>> >> see any moral problem with regulation or subsidized entrance for competition.
>> 
>> >Let me see if I can paraphrase this.  If market conditions are such that
>> >any person would be an idiot to voluntarily invest in a competing start-up, 
>> >you would be in favor of the government forcing all of the citizens to make 
>> >exactly this investment.  Forgive me if I admit that I don't understand this.
>> 
>> You understand it perfectly.  People not affected by the monopoly will
>> be losing out a little.  So yes,
>> there will be some redistribution (gasp!) occuring.  So if you're against
>> all redistribution as a matter of principle, nothing I say can convince
>> you. 

>It seems that all you have done is, through taxation, spread the loss
>over a large number of people, including a number of people who do not 
>ever partake of the good or service that they are subsidizing.  So those
>who partake of the product pay more than the government-proposed market
>price of it (when you add in their taxes), but less than the free-market
>price; and the latter difference is covered by payments from taxpayers
>who don't use the product at all, and so receive nothing for their taxes.

You're failing to take into account the benefits of a lower price level
to society.  See Atit Desai's post 1992Oct9.015404.26954@leland.Stanford.EDU
for a quite clear trivial example.  He debunks it, and expresses many 
real-world doubts about it.  But it is not nearly as trivial as you make it
out to be.  At least in theory, such subsidization CAN create a net benefit
for society.

>cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
>OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...


-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: An answer to one of David Sill's questions
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:14:42 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Originator: lando@tango


Dave Sill asks:

<Name some prominent Libertarians--CEO's, actors, writers, etc.

I believe David or Charles Koch, of Koch Industries in Wichita, Kansas
ran for the VP slot with the Libertarian Party sometime back.  I
don't know exactly when.   When I lived in Wichita, Koch Industries
was the second largest privately held company in the U.S., only behind
Cargill.   It was their goal to be the biggest.  The Kochs are
worth billions.

If I'm incorrect about Koch running as a Libertarian VP, I trust that
someone will provide correct information.



-- 
"Read my lips, 'No more statism.'"  - George Bush, NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian