HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:51:11 -0500 
From: Andrew Lewis Tepper <at15+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: A new drug argument (really)

When people claim that we're not winning the drug war because we aren't
spending enough/have enough police/have too many rights for the
criminals, I have been replying: "Suppose I grew marijuana, and you
wanted to buy some. What level of drug war would be necessary to prevent
_that_ sale?" This argument forces people to look at drug sales from the
point of the participants; the individuals. Try to be devil's advocates
and come up with a possible responce...

Andy
From: dchristy@boron.boron.cs (David Christy)
Subject: Re: Good Samaritian ??? 
Organization: /home/hawikuh1/dchristy/.organization
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:12:45 GMT


In article <727871507snz@keris.demon.co.uk> chris@keris.demon.co.uk writes:

>I think that it was a very good example of what our society tends to do.
>Could I have permission to distribute it?  I know people not on this
>newsgroup who could benefit by it...

Wow, I'm really honored that someone recogonized my story.  I thought that
it had been long forgotten.  As far as I'm concerned, the story now has
free reign, anyone can copy it, modify it, or add to it solong as they don't
destroy the 'orgiginal intent' of the message so that I won't be 
mis-represented.
	Thanks,
		David Christy

P.S. OOPS! Guess what, I didn't check my spelling or grammer before posting
     my 'Good Samaritian' story, if I made some mistakes it would be awful to
     have them distributed even further arround the world. Please be kind 
     enough to bail me out here. Thanks again.

******************************************************************************
* email: dchristy@freedom.nmsu.edu
*
* Libertarian - The philosophy of hope, when hope in government fades.
*             - The keepers of the faith, when faith in freedom is weak.
*             - The beholders of love, when none's to be found in coersion.
* When one believes in these principles, then they must make inevitable 
* conclusions about the nature of what is good and what is not, what works
* and what doesn't.
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sals@florimel.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Social Darwinism
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:36:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.023738.8981@nwnexus.WA.COM> marks@halcyon.com (Peter  
Marks) writes:
> jfh@yacht.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
> 
> >Okay, here we go again.
> >
> > [repetition of the old flame deleted: how Capitalism and The Market  
are the
> >  optimal way, and the rich are doing everone else a favor]
> >
> >It's high time you figured this out.
> 
> Okay, here we go again.
> 
> The Market is certainly an elegant and simple abstract model which seems  
to
> do a good job of explaining (in the way that models do this) one small
> aspect of the world's behavior.
The conception of market forces seem to do explain a whole lot more then  
just one small aspect of the world's behavior. Hayek used it to explain  
law and society and if you'd look in this month's Scientific America  
scientist are looking at the similarities between market forces and  
nonlinear dynamics.
> 
> Wha t all the apologists (unwitting or otherwise) for the seemingly
> insatiable greed of the rich (and others) seem to forget is that any  
such
> model is a slave to its logical assumptions.  
> 
> The classical examples in the case of the Market Model are the positing  
of
> equal/perfect consumer knowledge, and ease of supplier entry.  The  
trouble
> is that these axioms fail to hold precisely to the extent that the means  
of
> the players are different.  And this is the case, no matter whether the
> initial difference was due to skill, drive, luck, physical intimidation,  
or
> inheritence.
Very few economists hold these axoims to be true anymore. Much of modern  
economics, and Austrian economics in particluar, deals with how these  
assumptions are not true. Using the assumptions you detail above is a  
approximate means of trying to model the free market. While that  
approximation may not hold to be valid that doesn't invalidate the free  
market.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage.
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:20:00 GMT

In article <1k17smINN25d@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)  
writes:
>  Slavery has always
> been initiated by capitalists.
> 

Gee, makes for an awful lot of capitalists out there. Examples include the  
Aztecs, many North American Native tribes, the Soviet Union, Nazis, Romans,  
Greeks, Spain, the Arabs, Africans... Only the bad ole capitalists would do  
such a thing wouldn't they? Boy, some of them aren't even WASPs! Gasp!


--
Barry Wise

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Social Darwinism
Date: 21 Jan 1993 07:20:45 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

In article <1jkiu9INN3qr@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>Their mistake is that our government is not forcing them to do anything.
>They can leave at any time, as I would have if the draft had not been
	From one government to another?  Some solution.  The same or
similar problems would exist there; that is the definition of government.
>
>Mike Huben
>

		-- Phoenix -- Damien R. Sullivan  [X-) Kiljoy]
6x9=42 | AIXELSYD | 1374245896=4 | Libertarian Dictatorship
Honk if you're American and have heard of Steeleye Span... 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Party line
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 09:14:19 GMT

In article <1kFGOM#20QJ559GJyBG52Otsm3NjxtL=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>>                                                                      Even if
>> I support everything libertarian now, there might be some situation I haven't
>> yet thought of where I might conclude the NCP flunks.  What then?
>
>Then you'd have to either change other parts of your belief system or stop
>calling yourself a libertarian.  That isn't complicated, is it?

Please. He can call himself a libertarian, I'll call him a
libertarian, the media will call him a libertarian... He
wouldn't be a NCP absolutist libertarian. BFD. That kind of
disctinction may be important in an Objectivist debating club,
but it is not in real world politics.
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "That they don't even want"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage.
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: mrh@centerline.com's message of 18 Jan 1993 21:35:56 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1jeo1oINNot7@armory.centerline.com> <C12EqE.KI6@encore.com>
	<1jf7rsINNq3t@armory.centerline.com>
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:30:46

In article <1jf7rsINNq3t@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

> The US government NEVER enslaved.  At worst, it started with
> common law.  It never brought slaves here: that was entirely a
> free-market phenominon.

The institution of slavery could not have existed without the
support of the legal (and social) structures that prevented
slaves from just walking away.  And it was US Constitutional
restrictions on full citizenship and representation that
prohibited slaves from exercising their rights as individuals.
Even after the nominal abolition of slavery, it was still the Jim
Crow laws and that mandated segregation and prevented blacks from
competing on an equal footing in commercial and social spheres.
And it was the law that prohibited blacks from owning firearms
and other means of enforcing their individual sovereignty against
the depredations of both citizens and officers of the law alike.
And it was the law that prohibited blacks from obtaining the
level of education necessary to compete effectively in the world,
much less to even read the statutes that were the means of their
oppression.

> The *people* forced OTHER PEOPLE to cease enslaving.  Slavery
> and patriarchial exploitation of family are things done by
> PEOPLE, not governments.  There was nothing stopping those
> people from freeing their slaves and little stopping them from
> respecting the individual rights of their spouses and children.

There were very real legal and social obstacles to freeing
slaves.  You might try reading Jefferson on this account.  While
he recognized the injustice of slavery, he also saw that simply
declaring his inherited slaves to be free would not make them so.

Yes, of course, individuals people were responsible for keeping
slaves.  But the enslavement of an entire race cannot be
accomplished without the aid of government and its monopoly on
legal force.

=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:30:32 GMT

I'm ambivalent toward The Pledge.  (I signed, by the way.)

On the one hand, it's not required for LP membership.  You can join the
Party and not sign The Pledge.

On the other hand, if it's not required for membership, why have it at
all?  Obviously, a person who joins the Party must hold beliefs similar
(to a certain extent) to those stated in the Pledge, or that person
wouldn't be joining the Party.

My $0.00...

gak

---
I guess there's some things          |      Seems like the more I think I know
I'm not meant to understand          |                 The more I find I don't
Ain't life a riot? Ain't love grand? | Every answer opens up so many questions
Richard Stueven                 gak@wrs.com            ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Public goods.
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:25:18 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <C1BE7p.73@rice.edu> ervan@cs.rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:
>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) wrote:
>> I more or less agree with this analysis.  However, there is still more to it.
>> If the children suffer, and grow up to be adults who cannot compete within
>> the preferred system, they compete out of the system, i.e. they commit crimes.
>> 
>> Where I think the libertarians are wrong, is that they are not pragmatic enough
>> to recognize that while there is injustice to them in (3), there is also
>> injustice to them through (1) when the children grow up and commit crimes.
>> Frankly, I'd rather pay more taxes to create fellow citizens than to allow
>> a resentful underclass to grow up looking for opportunities to rip me off.
>> A class that isn't exploiting opportunities to expand itself at the expense
>> of other classes is likely to shrink until it is impotent.
>
>I think this answers a different question.  You, mrh, are defending 
>welfare for children on the basis that it is good for the taxpayers 
>as an investment to stop crime.  This does not impact on the 
>original question of "meeting the needs of children".  Instead you 
>are talking about meeting the needs of society.  You might contend 
>that these come to the same thing in terms of policy but they are 
>two different things in terms of reason why.

You're quite correct.  The reason I chose this argument was because I might
not need to persuade libertarians of my other beliefs first to convince them
to do what I want.  I do have numerous other arguments.

>If you think that the purpose of welfare for children is an 
>investment on the part of the taxpayers, you have implicitly agreed 
>with part of the libertarian position, that forced charity is theft 
>and instead some justification of it must be made for how it helps 
>the taxpayer (like for defense(*)).

(I've ommitted the explanation of the *, which is essentially a description
of public goods and an implicit agreement that taxation is just for public
goods.  If I've misrepresented you, Ervan, please let me know.)

I don't automatically oppose all libertarian positions.  I even agree with
some.  This question boils down to how to deal with public goods when a
portion of the public may not agree that they are public goods and wants to
avoid paying for them.

This is a basic problem of libertarianism, that libertarian anarchists "solve"
by declaring that there is no such thing as a public good, and libertarian
minarchists try not to emphasize.  I'd like to hear the latter describe
how they would pay for real public goods such as defense or sewers.

Mike Huben

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change
its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety
with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to
combat it."     --Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural, 4-Mar-1801
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: mrh@centerline.com's message of 18 Jan 1993 20:59:23 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1993Jan18.151637.25614@athena.mit.edu>
	<1jf5nbINNpsv@armory.centerline.com>
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:05:57

In article <1jf5nbINNpsv@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

> I love the way libertarians are so inconsistant with each other
> and even themselves.

Since you are so familiar with applied logic, and so fond of the
Socratic method, perhaps you will favor us with an answer to some
questions:

What species of fallacious reasoning attempts to generalize from
the specific actions of particular individual members of a group
to an implication that all members of that group share a
proclivity to act in such a manner?

Which one is it that implies that a property of all members of
a group is peculiar to a particular subset group?

(Just the formal classifications of the fallacies is all that we
require; your statement above will suffice as a fine compound
example of both.  You clearly qualify for a good grade in economy
of exemplary exposition.)

For extra credit, what general category of verbal fallacy
subsumes both of the above subcategories?  (Hint: This one is far
and away the most popular of all the fallacies among the Usenet
contributors.)

=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: dlivings@cs.strath.ac.uk (Daniel J Livingstone IE90)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: official releases
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:16:34 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.


 I have reading a.p.l. for quite a while now, but as I have to cut
 down on the news I read (for the sake of my final year project) I
 am making a request of readers of a.p.l. before I unsubscribe.

 All I require is a copy (mailed to me, please) of official LP
 policies or major press releases. The concept of libertarianism
 still interests me in a perverse way, and it's becoming clear
 that no matter how much I read this group my own views are
 not likely to change regarding the desireability of
 a Libertarian state.

 I would still like to read something `official' though, as to my
 knowledge I have read no official policy to date.


thanks,
daniel
-- 
dlivings@cs.strath.ac.uk
- Reality is what you make it
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Do Pragmatic Libertarians Belong in LP or RLC? (was Re: Party line)
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:10:58 GMT

In article <1k1i0aINNae4@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> In article <YAMAUCHI.93Jan25134701@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|> |> This raises an interesting question -- do pragmatic libertarians
|> |> belong in Libertarian Party or the Republican Liberty Caucus?  I
|> |> define a pragmatic libertarian to be anyone who falls in the
|> |> libertarian quadrant (supporting civil liberties and free enterprise)
|> |> but who is not a non-coercion absolutist.

Regarding LP vs. RLC, it is not an either/or question most of the time.
Not many RLCers were challenged by LPers.  And some successful RLCers
were endorsed by LPers (unofficially, I guess).  I would vote for
whichever candidate I thought the most competent.

|> I suppose this depends on whether the LP represents the libertarian
|> quadrant, or simply a libertarian point (100/100 on the Nolan chart).
|> At the present time, the LP seems to represent the views of those who
|> are at or near the 100/100 point.  They don't seem to care about those
|> who fall in the rest of the quadrant.  I personally would like to
|> see the LP 'moderate' its views so that it encompasses more of those
|> in the libertarian quadrant.

Do you think all Republicans support the ban of all abortions even in
cases of rape and incest?  It was in their platform.  Don't get caught
up in the purist vs.  moderate mentality.  I say we're at about 50%
self-government right now.  If you want to go to 90%, join the only
group who's first and only priority is to reduce government in all
areas: libertarians.  At 90%, if you think there is too much
self-government, join the republicrats to balance things out.  I don't
think we'll be at a point for you to worry about too much
self-government for a couple decades.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Party line
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 01:09:53 GMT

In article <C1F327.GD2@athena.cs.uga.edu> dbrown@ai.uga.edu writes:
>If the only way to get LP members elected is to allow people who oppose the
>libertarian philosophy to run for office as Libertarians, why should there
>even be a Libertarian Party? 

Who has suggested allowing people who oppose the libertarian
philosophy to run for office as Libertarians? All of the
anti-pledge people that I know of would be strongly opposed to
anyone running as a Libertarian on a non-libertarian platform.
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage.
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:34:06 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1k1bumINN8e5@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>Hmmm, in a previous post you claimed that people have no rights other than
>what the government grants.  Since the government did not grant any rights
>to slaves, slave owners were clearly not denying slaves their 'rights',
>correct?

Please be careful not to misrepresent me to make your argument.  Feel free
to cite anything I've written to establish your premise.  (I believe you made
this claim before: I just haven't had time to rebut it.)

Mike Huben

"Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it
is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made
to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be
incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation
made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
Thomas Paine in "The Age Of Reason".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:18:29 GMT

In article 11401@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu, mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
>In article <C1H1yx.2Br@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>
>>On the one hand, it's not required for LP membership.  You can join the
>>Party and not sign The Pledge.
>
>This is not true.

Without past and present membership-application forms in front of me, I
can't argue this, but Mike is the second person who has told me I'm
wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time my memory has invented facts, so
I'll withdraw my assertion ("You can join the Party and not sign The
Pledge") until I can back it up somehow.

Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4

	The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered
	considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more
	destructive of respect for the government and the law of the
	land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open
	secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is
	closely connected with this.
     		-- Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Do Pragmatic Libertarians Belong in LP or RLC? (was Re: Party line)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 01:16:08 GMT

In article <YAMAUCHI.93Jan25134701@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>This raises an interesting question -- do pragmatic libertarians
>belong in Libertarian Party or the Republican Liberty Caucus?  I
>define a pragmatic libertarian to be anyone who falls in the
>libertarian quadrant (supporting civil liberties and free enterprise)
>but who is not a non-coercion absolutist.

The LP.

>These are people who are equally offended at Buchananesqe cultural
>warfare, Quaylist family values, tax-and-spend Clintonomics, and Gorey
>environmental extremism -- but who perhaps support some (substantially
>reduced) taxes or some (of the less brain-damaged) government programs
>and subsidies.

These are also people who will praise any Repugnant that gives
them the time of day, no matter how anti-libertarian. If the RLC
concentrated on getting real libertarians elected rather than
touting socialists like Weld and Zimmer then I might have some
use for it.
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu