HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Date: 5 Oct 1992 21:56:19 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

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.

This clearly indicates to me that we should vote for one or both of the
major parties.  Especially in their primaries.

The only way change is likely to occur is when it is endorsed by one or more
major parties.  History shows that it doesn't pay to hold your breath while
waiting for a small party to supplant one of the large ones: I don't think
that's happened in the US since the demise of the Whigs.

Clearly those with socialist goals have been able to coopt the large parties,
so it is possible.  Hopefully it won't happen for most libertarian goals.

I'm not worried.  Petulent "I don't wanna pay my taxes, and any way it's all
waste" libertarians haven't the capacity for deferred gratification that is
required to accomplish long-term objectives.  They're a group that's united
only by their dislikes and dissent: that's never going to accumulate much
following.

Mike Huben

"Utopias now appear much more realizable than one used to think.  We are now
faced with a different new worry: How to prevent their realization."
						Nicolas Berdiaeff
From: matta@lclark.edu (Matt Alexander)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: Sacajawea's Voice
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:10:05 GMT

In article <5794@news.duke.edu> eja@north6.acpub.duke.edu (Eric Akawie) writes:
>
>You could also hire your own protective private security company, or own your own
>gun. Or tear gas grenades. or any number of other non-deadly force weapons
>that would likely be available on a truly free market.  Or to go to an 
>extreme, own your own tac-nuke and let it be known that if a private security
>company breaks down your door, their headquarters will soon be a smouldering mass
>of gravel that is not earning any money whatsoever.
>
    Oh great, like this is what we fucking need...
"Might makes Right" and "Money == Power". HOW IS THIS AN IMPROVEMENT?

--- Boober
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Force and tax collection.
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:03:37 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <11203@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu>, bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu writes:
> |> 
> 
> 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.  

If I'm not mistaken, in South Africa at least, you can't just dig your
own diamonds.  It is illegal and the government will stop you.  This is 
yet another aspect of the non-free-market nature of the diamond business, 
and adds to Bill Gunshannon's point.  (I'll try to verify this info.)


> 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

thant
From: bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Vouchers for Schools
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:07:18 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

Being very much in favor of this, I too, would love more info.

Even though I seriously doubt George Bush is likely to remain
in power long enough to ever accomplish it.

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.society.anarchy
From: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Open letter to the libertarian right
Reply-To: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:15:53 GMT

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.

I have a positive attitude about exchanging equal value for equal value,
IF I can approach my adversary on an equal footing.


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.



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

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Education (Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.)
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:23:23 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ISBELL.92Sep30091546@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

>By the way, from where do the vouchers come?  Local taxes? State taxes?
>Federal taxes?

All of the above.  The funding for vouchers will come from the same place that
the current funding for schools comes from.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Education (Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.)
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:08:13 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ISBELL.92Sep28161301@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

>Are you positing supermarket schools?  A school on every corner as a
>solution?  In the interim, how would you prioritize your criterion
>such that you rank each child to determine who goes where?  Charge
>more?  test four year olds?  their parents?  go by proximity?

In a word, yes.  The individual schools  get to choose where to locate,
the school also gets to decide what selection criteria to use.
Instead of the one size fits all schooling that we are currently using
(which has been shown to be an abject failure).  Individual schools
can and will experiment to find the best mix of rules and regulations
to govern themselves.  Yes there will be some problems converting
to a new system.  I obviously don't think the problems are as large
as you do.  But refusing to leave a sinking ship because the water
might be cold is not good logic either.


>How does this affect change?  Does it really force improvement of
>other schools?  How does it address teacher quality?  Student quality?
>Etc, etc.

Under a market system those schools that do the best job of teaching
kids will attract more kids and become more profitable.  Other
schools will begin to adopt portions of the successfull schools
program.
Those programs that work will be propogated, those that don't will
be abandoned.
This is how quality of all involved will go up.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson)
Subject: Re: FAQ?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:21:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.131132.4386@news2.cis.umn.edu> stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.222500.43561@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>Subject line says it all...if no FAQ, what is the best single work
>>setting forth contemporary Libertarian thought?
>
>Alas, the group is too new to have a FAQ list.
>
>Best known for his _Introduction to Philosophical Analysis_
>(which he wrote in the late '50's while here at Minnesota), Hospers was the
>first Presidential candidate for the LP, earning us a bookworm reputation we've
>yet to shake.
>
>--Jack Stecher
>stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

	Is having Dr. Nancy Lord (holder of several degrees) as VP
candidate helping that endeavor?  :-)

-- 
Peter Johnson	       "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience	
Independent Studies     cannot blindly follow orders." --Capt. Jean-Luc
University of Waterloo  Picard (Patrick Stewart) to Adm. Haftel, STAR TREK:
	   		THE NEXT GENERATION, "The Offspring"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jstiver@purcell.helios.nd.edu (Jim Stiver)
Subject: Let's see you do it. (was: statistics)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:22:48 GMT

Since I have my budget statistics handy I thought it would
be interesting to post them with an invitation to shuffle
the numbers as you see fit. I'd like to see how various 
people would set the federal budget if they were the pres.
and congress, well mostly congress, but that's another thread.

This is for FY 1990:

Federal income (excluding borrowing): $1031.3 billion
Federal spending (total):             $1251.7 billion
                                       --------------
Budget deficit:                        $220.4 billion


Breakdown of federal income (including borrowing)
-------------------------------------------------

   Personal income taxes......................... 37%
   Social security, medicare, unemploment taxes.. 30%
   Borrowing..................................... 18%
   Corporate income taxes........................  8%
   Excise, customs, estate, gift, misc. taxes ...  7%


Breakdown of federal spending
-----------------------------

   Social security, medicare..................... 31%
   Defense*...................................... 27%
   Interest on the debt.......................... 14%
   Physical, human, and community development**.. 14%
   Social programs***............................ 12%
   Law enforcement and general government........  2%

*23% for defense, 2% for veterans benefits, 1% for foreign
 aid and embassy maintainance

**7% medicaid, food stamps, AFDC; 5% health, housing, unemployment

***agricultural; natural resources and environmental; transportation;
 education; job training; economic development; space, energy, science.


Take a shot. (at a budget, I mean)

Jim Stiver


(of course you may feel like taking the other kind)
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Homestead votes to ban mobile homes
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:00:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


>Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Homestead votes to ban mobile homes
Date: Mon Sep 28 07:48:39 1992

In article <Bv8uI2.G5y@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>After being hit by the worst hurricane of the century, mobile home
>residents (most former due to damage) are still not informed/educated
>enough to make their own decision about whether to live in a mobile home
>again or not. At least that's what the Homestead commissioners voted
>last week: a one year moratorium on mobile homes while the city analyzes
>whether the ban should be permanent.

This is idiotic!  Southern Florida could be rebuilt rapidly with
hurricane-resistant manufactured homes.  There are hundreds of
thousands of people made homeless by Andrew, and now they will
remain homeless, because a bunch of upper-middle-class commissioners
want to impose their prejudices on everybody else.  Of course, since
they don't mention the homeless in this law the homeless aren't involved
and I'm raising a straw man, right?  Not!  Civilization is a whole system.

------------------------------

Hey, fuck this libertarian shit....I am going to become a building 
contractor and specialize in public housing projects.  Move over boys...
I demand a place at the public trough....

Oh, sorry...I thought I was posting in alt.NOT!....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Comment on Private School vouchers
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:35:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.164932.25801@leland.Stanford.EDU>, bohnert@leland.Stanford.EDU (matthew bohnert) writes:
|> I'm generally in favor of the above, but I remember doing a term paper on
|> the fraud and abuse that `trade schools' perpetuated in the late 70's and
|> early 80's when finanical aid for higher education was still in (relative)
|> abundance.  Bob's Institute for Heating and Refrigeration Repair would
|> teach a student practically nothing, while bilking the taxpayers out of a
|> few grand.  
|> 
|> Now admittedly, if the student really wants the quality education
|> this type of abuse will be self-correcting.  But what constitutes an
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good point however it should read student and parent.

|> acceptable form of accreditation for processing tax dollars via school
|> vouchers?  Can the following scenario happen much too easily?

The problem with accreditation is that if it is used to determine which
schools may recieve voucher funds then the government can gain control of
the school and we are back to the government running the schools (at least
potentially). Private rating services to help parents choose a quality
school would be a useful service that would certainly be provided by
enterprising folks. Each rating service would probably specialize in a
particular type of school. Some Churches and charities might provide this
as a free service.

I think the dangers of an accreditation system out weigh any advantages.
The problem is that accreditation might end up being denied because the
school does not teach government doctrine # 2435nz545-A.

|> 
|> 1) Some joker puts a sign on his garage and says `I'm a school! Bring
|> 	in your vouchers!'

This would be fraud and should be handled as such.

|> 
|> 2) Disgruntled high schoolers with little parental supervision (or perhaps,
|> 	desparately needy parents themselves) bring in their $2500 voucher.

Vouchers should be issued only to the parents or gaurdians. The kids could
not use them.

|> 
|> 3) Aforementioned joker cashes check, kicks back $2000 to the parent and
|> 	student, and bags $500 for himself.

Again this is fraud. If no teaching is going on in the garage then the
parent would be effectively home schooling. If I were home schooling I
would rather put the entire $2500 toward supplies etc. It should go without saying but I will say it anyway. Any decent voucher system would include home schooling. You could restrict the use of the funds to school supplies (books and other equipment).

|> 
|> Any comments?
|> 
|> Matt Bohnert
|> 

I am sure there are complications that I haven't considered of course. I guess
any time you get the Gov. involved it will complicate things.

				mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com (Patrick Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Homestead votes to ban mobile homes
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:25:47 GMT

rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:

> Any comments?

Maybe they should rename the town to "Homeless".  I wonder if the
commissioners have a plan for the people that they've priced out of
affordable housing?

How about the building codes that were mostly ignored by builders and
inspectors?  Will they realize that the regulations did very little to
ensure the quality of housing?  No, there will be lawsuits against the
builders (but probably not the inspectors), and then a push for more
regulation.

Just what happened after the last major hurricane, according to NPR.
--
   ______   |o| Patrick Fitzgerald     |o| Mailstop GD3002
  / ___  )  |o| pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com  |o| Huntsville, AL 35894-0001
 / __)/ /__ |o| Sr. Software Analyst,  |o| VOICE: (205) 730-3741
(_/it(_____)|o| Intergraph Corporation |o| FAX:   (205) 730-3300
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:00:17 GMT

In article <9409@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In article <9389@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>In <1992Sep30.091620.6641@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>GA:Unless all companies used the same standard contract.  Remember, there
>GA:would be no anti-trust laws to prevent companies from joining together
>GA:to preserve their common interest.  Try to get a credit card now...
>
>I don't know of any libertarians who support the elimination of anti-trust
>laws.  Except maybe the extreme anarchist wing.

	<me with my hand up>
	I assume that by making the letter "L" small in "libertarians", you
do not mean to exclude those who are not members of the Libertarian Party.
I am an Objectivist, a student of a philosophy which can hardly be
described as the "extreme anarchist wing", since Objectivism specifically
states a moral requirement for government--of a certain nature, of course.

>How about if argue about what libertarianism stands for, instead of what
>you want it to stand for.
>
>Mark
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

-- 
Peter Johnson	       "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience	
Independent Studies     cannot blindly follow orders." --Capt. Jean-Luc
University of Waterloo  Picard (Patrick Stewart) to Adm. Haftel, STAR TREK:
	   		THE NEXT GENERATION, "The Offspring"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Please let Marrou debate! -- and CNN's Crossfire
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:00:40
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: caisr1.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: lgibes@teal.csn.org's message of 2 Oct 92 19:27:13 GMT

In article <BvIE1F.3wH@csn.org> lgibes@teal.csn.org (Lawrence R. Gibes) writes:

>	I got the  following off of  Libernet last night.   I called  Sally
>  Moore and this is for real.  She said that the commission invited Ross
>  Perot to enter the debate.  Obviously, if Perot can debate, then Andre
>  SHOULD be invited.

There was an interesting exchange on tonight's Crossfire (loosely
paraphrased):

Republican: We think Perot should be allowed to debate with Bush and
Clinton.

Kinsley: But you just said that he has no chance of winning, right?

Rep: Yes, but he's still a candidate.  He's on the ballot in all 50
states.

Kinsley: So are the Libertarian candidate and Lenore Fulani, why not
let them into the debates?

Rep: We don't think that's necessary.

I'm not sure the comment about Fulani was accurate, but at least the
Crossfire hosts are aware of the LP and what it stands for.  I've
heard them mention the Libertarians several times -- usually for
rhetorical effect rather than advocacy, but it's better than
nothing...

An exchange back during the '88 campaign went something like:

Kinsley: This is all a sham.  Bush isn't really going to cut the size
of government.

Buchanan: Then vote for Ron Paul -- he'll really cut government
spending.

Kinsley: Yeah, but too much.

--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:33:08 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <ISBELL.92Oct4180142@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
> 
> From the _New Republic_ July 15 & 22 1991:
> 
> "...in Fall River, Mass. which offers families limited choice, a 1990
> survey indicated that the main reason parents select their
> first-choice school is proximity to home.  Other reasons include
> another child in the same school, a baby sitter nearby, and the
> availability of extended day care.  A small minority liked the
> atmosphere at the school and the programs offered.  Similarly in
> Minnesota, 71 percent of the families who took advantage of open
> enrollment in the 1978-88 school year did so for reasons of
> convenience, social atmosphere, or family tradition.  High academic
> standards may actually send some kids running--three students in one
> Minnesota district transferrred to a school with easier graduation
> requirements.  Good atheletics are also a big draw."
> 
> I found that somewhat counter-intuitive.  Anyone have any possible
> reasons for the criterion "academic excellence" ranking so low (I can
> think of one, I suppose:  all the schools were so excellent that it
> didn't matter)?

My, you DO have a lot to learn about Massachusetts.  We're talking
about Fall River here -- the despair pit of the state.  The problem
may simply be that the residents that are left there don't really
care any more.  One "A" student with whom I am intimately familiar
transferred from an academic program to a business program because
there was no future in being an academic graduate in Fall River.
However, being a secretary was considered lucrative.

Odd that New Republic decided to concentrate on Fall River statistics.  
First, it's not "Fall River" that is offering limited choice, but the 
STATE.  Cities and towns don't have a "choice" to let students LEAVE 
the system -- they're free to do that.  They DO get to choose whether 
to allow external students to ENTER the system, and many towns with
good school systems are doing exactly that (to the consternation of
their less efficient neighbors).
-- 

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...
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 5 Oct 1992 19:32:49 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <9417@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM
(Mark Wilson) does his best to ignore reality:

>Any school that is experiencing such long waiting lists will try to expand
>as rapidly as possible.

This is patently untrue at both university and secondary school levels.
Otherwise Harvard would be at least 5 times its current size.

Even libertarians ought to be able to explain several factors which may
limit growth to less than demand.

Mike Huben

"Education is what survives when what has been learnt has been forgotten."
						B. F. Skinner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian