HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fseipel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Frank E Seipel)
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:10:29 GMT

>It would have been refreshing to hear one of the rubbercheckers stand up
>and say, "It was one of the perks, and I took advantage of it."  However,
>what we heard was one after another lying about whether, how many, and
>for how much.

 Overdraft protection was a perk.  However, several members clearly
abused it by running large negative balances over long periods of
time, in effect taking out zero interest loans.  While the taxpayer
did not directly pay for this, it does make one wonder: If your
congressman can't balance his own checkbook, how pray tell will he/she
be able to balance the federal budget?  In addition, the taxpayer did
bear the burden the operating expenses of the now-closed House Bank.
Why should they get a special bank run at taxpayer expense?  The
staffs these people have are far too large and need to be cut.
 You certainly have a point about accountability.  The issue of
disclosure (of bounced checks) was hotly debated, and finally, under
enormous pressure from the media and the public, the names of the check
bouncers were disclosed.

>If there was nothing wrong with their behavior, why were they so busy
>trying to create the appearance (if that's all it was) of ignorance and
>stupidity?  Because that should deserve our sympathy?  It must have
>worked, judging by the number of them who were re-elected.
>
>I'm not suggesting that the rubber check part was wrong.  I say they
>deserve to be voted out of office for their lack of integrity.

 Certainly there is a lack of integrity.  Indeed, most members are
too busy playing golf or enjoying themselves to even make it over
to the House; anyone ever wonder why C-Span's cameras never pan
all the seats?  They are not allowed to control the cameras.  Of
course, lawmakers have given some lame reasons for this restriction,
such as not wanting to be seen picking their noses on camera <grin>,
but this could all be edited out.  
 
 In truth, little gets done in front of the whole Congress; the
committees are where all the action is, and special interest groups
wield enormous power.  I think the reason so many were re-elected is
the NIMBY syndrome: Not In My Backyard, that is, the belief that
my representative is wonderful, but the entire Congress is horrible.

-- 

                                  New ACEC BBS (614) 267-3342 3/12oo bps
Frank Seipel                      A.C.E.C. BBS (614) 471-8559 3/12/24oo bps
fseipel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Pandora  BBS (614) 471-9209 3/12oo bps
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Gold v. Oil: Backed Currency
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 09:48:29 GMT

positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:

>The five dollar bill you hold in your hand buys what one dollar could buy
>in the Sixties. Does that not constitute a financial catastrophy in your
>book?

You earn $5 today in the time it took to earn $1 in the Sixties.

>Let's go through this one more time. As it is now, if the government wants
>more money to spend (and who doesn't?) they can just print more. To use a
>simple example, if the government decided to double the money supply,
>they'd have a huge chunk of money to spend... but anyone who was holding
>cash will discover that it now buys half of what it used to. Unfair? Yes,
>but perfectly legal... with nothing backing our currency.

If the government prints more money they didn't "effectively" double the
money supply.  If there are twice the number of notes then the notes are
worth 1/2 their former value.  Anyone accepting them would demand twice
as many of the new ones.

There would be no net effect on the cost of goods or what you earn after
everybody adjusted for it.

Money is a commodity traded on its own, just like wheat or steel, it is
however shares in a country not of a hard good or product.  It is
hoarded or spent depending upon whether people speculate the price of
money will go up or down.  If you think Yen is moving up you'll want to
trade in your dollars and hold onto Yen, trading back for more dollars
than the Yen cost you when you think Yen peaked.

U.S. dollars are a form of U.S. stock certificates, they are worth what
the buyer and seller agree upon and not a penny more or less.

tom

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: RFD: talk.politics.patriot
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:02:47 GMT
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) says:

>I would like to propose a newsgroup for the patriot movement in the U.S.
>This would include discussions on rights violations by legislation, gold 
>and silver as payment for debts, freedom organizations and many other basic 
>US Constitutional topics.
>
>Thanks
>-- 
>Brian Sheets		    _   /|  	"TRUCK?! What truck?"
>153 N. Hayden Bay Dr.	    \`o_O'    	 
>Portland, Or 97217	      ( ) 	   -Raiders of the Lost Ark
>brians@atlastele.com           U
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
From: erics@sco.COM (eric smith)
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:32:52 GMT


bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:

>rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham) writes:

>>  You better open your eyes, the current system is ruled by special interests.
>>  If you went to Wash with a pet peeve, on your own with no money backing
>>  you, your congressperson would view you as a nuisance. This is the
>>  result of the demopublicans running the country. Remember, lobbyists are
>>  people who are seeking favors and advantages over their competitors.

>Two questions:

>  1) Has it ever been different?
>  2) Do you think it ever will be?

At least now we have some governmental protection in the form of regulation.
For example, if a person feels discriminated against in hiring or firing,
he or she can go to the EEOC. The FAA assures certain safety standards for
air travel. The EPA works to ensure that corporations aren't polluting
our environment. Et cetera. But hand the system over to Libertarians,
and your only recourse if you've been wronged or injured (or your
survivors' if you've been killed) will be to hire lawyers to pursue
the other party. Give me a break. What chance would an average citizen
have going against Dow Chemical? "Special interests"? This country is
not "ruled by" special interests; this country IS special interests.
Every one of us is a member of at least one special interest group.
(And, by the way, I don't have to go to Washington to communicate with
my congressperson. I've done it right here and I was not treated as a
"nuisance". Maybe that's one reason Clinton picked him to be director
of the OMB.)

-----
Eric Smith	    | "My friends, no matter how rough the road may be,
erics@sco.com	    |	we can and we will, never, never surrender
erics@infoserv.com  |	to what is right."
CI$: 70262,3610	    |		- J. Danforth Quayle
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re:  Gold vs. Oil
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:29:57 GMT

Charles -
I have two basic arguments against gold.  

1)  If a country gets
stuck with lots of gold there almost nothing they can do with it.  If a
country gets stuck with lots of oil, there's lots they can do with it. 
Gold is only valuable in the same way that unbacked American Currency is
valuable; people take it in exchange for intrinsicly valuable things. 
IMHO there would be no way to trade a large quantity of gold suddenly.  If
there were then why isn't South Africa, USSR...  making a fortune selling
off their gold.

2)  I don't think all of the gold in the world is worth more than all the
currency circulating in the US.  Hence gold couldn't back US currency.

I've argued that under reasonalbe
economic conditions oil is no harder than gold to use as a backing
currency.  Now people like yourself seem to be talking about these collapse of
civ. scenerios where they want to pack there wealth in a bag and head for
hills.  Even in this scenerio I think gold would be worthless.  But for
the sake of argument I'll grant if civ. collpases gold would be easier.  
	So what?!  Do you really think a defecit of less than 1 years gnp.
can come close to bringing our govt. down?  I just can't except that for
this reason a standard which requires that people use paper is
unacceptable.  
	As for general fear of price fluctiation that's been argued. 
We've reached an impasse.  You think it would happen, and very few others
share your opinion.
From: rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:16:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <carl-171292113533@mac7.gsfc.nasa.gov> carl@class.gsfc.nasa.gov (Carl F. Hostetter) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.205810.5848@samba.oit.unc.edu>,
>bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 	I think this is topic worth discussing.  Why are so many
>> libertarians opposed to feminism?  
>> 
>> -JMB
>
>Because the mainstream organized feminist groups want The Government
>to enforce their agenda.


Bingo!

I have absolutely no problem with a LOT of the femminist agenda, but I
take great exception to the way they seem to want to implement it.

-- 
Rich Loether (rjl@unix.cis.pitt.edu)
Computing and Info Services (Systems & Networks)
(412) 624-6429 / FAX (412) 624-6436
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Subject: Re: Do children have rights independent of their parents?
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 10:07:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec6.095112.408@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <s0499528.19.0@let.rug.nl> s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis) writes:
>}
>}A bit sweeping again. But I do understand why it is so sweeping; can anyone 
>}name a country where libertarianism has actually been tried yet this century?
>
>Sort of.  Hong Kong's economy is the closest; Switzerland's political
>system is the best I know of; and the Netherlands social tolerance is about
>what we'd like to have.

The Netherlands? Very far from it!  You think the government is coercive
here?  They approach a Socialist government there.  I was really surprised
at the types of government programs they had there.
From: aa396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill Henley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Russell Means??
Date: 12 Dec 1992 23:01:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In article #2384 Joe Naiman mentions that his choice for the
1996 Libertarian Presidential nomination would be Russell Means
(a Native American activist who lost the nomination to Ron Paul
in 1988).  If news reports I've seen are accurate, Means has
(IMHO) forfeited any claim to being a libertarian leader, by
leading a demonstration which tried to forcibly stop a Columbus
Day parade.  No matter how strongly he may disagree with some-
one's opinion (i.e., that Columbus was a hero), a libertarian
doesn't try to use physical force to stop the public, peaceful
expression of that opinion.

-- 
Bill Henley, Assistant Sysop, Cleveland Free-Net Science Fiction
& Fantasy SIG (aa396)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: Gold v. Oil: Backed Currency
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 02:25:11 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <liqfg6INNra@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>In article lS@engin.umich.edu, positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:

>> had two big advantages: First, it had a strong foundation. People were
>> confident that they could always trade their money for a fixed quantity
>> of gold. Now, they have no such assurance. Our money system is like
>> a skyscraper built on a foundation of sand. 

>What was the last financial catastrophy credited to the absence of
>a gold standard?

The five dollar bill you hold in your hand buys what one dollar could buy
in the Sixties. Does that not constitute a financial catastrophy in your
book?

>The only market participants that are uncomfotable with a currency
>that has no inherent value are the liberatarians, an admitted minority
>of the marketplace.

That's a pretty sweeping statement, that only liberatarians [sic] are
uncomfotable [sic] with a currency with no inherent value... and I charge
that it's patently false. Care to back it up?

Let's go through this one more time. As it is now, if the government wants
more money to spend (and who doesn't?) they can just print more. To use a
simple example, if the government decided to double the money supply,
they'd have a huge chunk of money to spend... but anyone who was holding
cash will discover that it now buys half of what it used to. Unfair? Yes,
but perfectly legal... with nothing backing our currency. You don't think
currency should be backed? In this day and age, inflation of 5%/year is
considered *good*... don't you see anything wrong with that? If our currency
was backed by gold, the government *could not* just print more money...
because for every thirty-five dollars they printed, they'd need another ounce
of gold (or whatever was adopted as the standard) in storage, lest the
owner of that thirty-five dollars demanded it.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jfmcbray@sacam.OREN.ORTN.EDU (Jason F McBrayer)
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:16:19 GMT


	Everyone seems to be writing as if the only alternatives were
Socialism, lassais-faire Capitalism, and Feudalism.  As an anarchist
(philosophically, anyway), I feel compelled to respond.  All of the
aforementioned systems are means of dealing with scarcity, and are
successful in vayring degrees.
	Scarcity is an economic concept meaning, roughly, that there's not
enough of everything to go around, and you have to find some way of
distributing it.  Scarcity is fundamental to our understanding of
economics, but if we look at the problem anthropologically, we learn that
scarcity is NOT universal, and therefore, scarcity-based economies are not
the only alternatives.
	Scarcity began with increasing populations due to the invention of
agriculture in the Neolithic.  Agriculture provided cheap calories at the
cost of poor nutrition and calcified social structures.  The upshot is
that once you start using agriculture as a means of survival, you're tied
into (local, at least) overpopulation and scarcity.  Paleolithic and
Mesolithic hunter-gatherer societies did not know scarcity, and dispite
their lack of medical technology, had longer lifespans and better health
than farmers of the middle ages, or even the 19th century.
	Does this mean I'm suggesting a return to hunting and gathering? 
Of course not.  Ignoring the cultural problems, the populatiion of the
earth is simply too large to go back.  However, there is another
alternative:  do away with scarcity!  What this requires is that
production be increased to a level where the population can be supported,
without the need for constant labour.  (Side note:  a bushman of the !Kung
works about 4 hours a week)  Production must be unlinked from labour and
capital.  When human populations were small, nature took care of this. 
Now, I presume that it will require intensive genetic engineering and
probably nanotechnology.  Until this is possible, there is no possibility
of social or political justice.  Once it is, people's needs will be easily
satisfied, and social and political problems will wither to a point where
they can be dealt with on an individual scale, rather than a faceless
"national crisis" scale as they are now.
	Until the problem of scarcity is solved, we need to work towards
whatever economic system minimizes suffering in the interim.  As much as I
oppose it on principle, in my opinion, the most successful system is a
mixed economy.

_______________________________________________________________

Jason F. McBrayer
jfmcbray@sacam.oren.ortn.edu
"There is nothing more damaging than the spirit of seriousness."
						-Sartre

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bill@verdix.com (William Spencer)
Subject: Re: Somalia, Liberatarian State
Organization: Verdix Corp
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:06:38 GMT

rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
> My opinion: we're so far from minarchy, who cares?

I believe what you are inferring is that anarchists and minarchists
can work together now and deal with their differences later once closer 
to the goal. My opinion is that they need to agree on a message to present
to the public now that is believable and convincing. Explain how Somalia
and Libertaria are different *before* confusing them with the LP Platform :).
Most people are turned off before finding out the variety of views within
libertarianism.

Bill s
From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Subject: Re: Labelling laws.
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 09:23:16 GMT

In article <11336@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.080931.4995@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>|> 
>|> Wrong.  We can't secede even if we want to and are justified in doing so.
>|> The American Empire won't let us.
>|> 
>
>Actually, it would be interesting to see what the reaction both within the US
>and without if one of the states (I nominate Pennsylvania) decided to secede.
>
>After all, when the former USSR was breaking up didn't we say it was their right
>to secede if they so desired??  And what about Yugoslavia??  Hasn't the US made
>it their official policy that secession of the various states is their right??
>
>So why not here too??
>
>It would be interesting to see what the Federal response would be and also to 
>see what the rest of the world would think of that response.


We've tried this already!  About 130 years ago.  And it wasn't just a small 
state like Lituania either-- a third of the country tried this.  But to be
fair, name a nation that has not tried to prevent part of itself from 
seceeding.
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: gold
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 23:25:24 GMT

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) enter's the contest with:

>Transylvania prints a billion drachmas, and buys gold-backed currency until
>people find out that they have more drachmas than they used to.  The value of
>the drachma falls, and falls further than it should because people have the
>Transylvania-inspired-impression that the market is flooded by drachmas even
>worse than it is.  Transylvania then buys back its drachmas with a portion of
>the gold-backed currency it sold them for, holds an elaborate drachma-burning
>ceremony to reinstill faith in the drachma, and nets alot of gold.

You forgot "Transylvania puts poison in other nations' water supplies".

Let's substitute "Russia" for Transylvania and "rubles" for "drachmas"
and you'll notice that assets remain in all countries.

Confidence in the ruble was never established therefore few accepted it
in trade.  If you traded with Russia it was for hard goods for just that
reason.  If somebody trades "dollar certificates" and they are worthless
you speculated on a currency and it failed.

Describing one way out of a billion ways to swindle someone is not a
reasonable argument.  What if they just traded a billion tons of rotten
wheat for the gold, would you feel better ?

tom

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:02:46 GMT

Maybe the people who think that burning oil is bad should be pushing for
an oil-based currency (greasebacks?) since that would cause most of the
oil to be held in currency reserves. s

Nancy Lebovitz
nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: Question: Foreign Policy Issues 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90c (ka9q DIS 1.18, CC 1.18c)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:34:04 +0000


In article <1992Dec8.151436.9552@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
           starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes:

>Hope we win you over.  Damn few female libertarians.  Pity.

Why?  No, I don't mean "Why is it a pity?" - why are there so few female
libertarians?  Is there something about the policies that puts them off?
Is there something in the attitudes of prominent libertarians which
seems to exclude women?

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Gold v. Oil: Backed Currency
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:48:27 GMT

In article <liqfg6INNra@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>In article lS@engin.umich.edu, positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>> When money was backed by gold, it had a definite value. 
>
>In gold only. 

as opposed to... congress's generosity?
             ... _______________________   fill in your alternative

at least i know others will buy gold.

>> had two big advantages: First, it had a strong foundation. People were
>> confident that they could always trade their money for a fixed quantity
>> of gold. Now, they have no such assurance. Our money system is like
>> a skyscraper built on a foundation of sand. 
>
>What was the last financial catastrophy credited to the absence of
>a gold standard?

other than the degradation of your buying power?
have you studied german fiscal policy in the 1930's?

if we have identified a dangerous trend, do we have to wait for 
a disaster before we are allowed to do anything about it?

>The only market participants that are uncomfotable with a currency
>that has no inherent value are the liberatarians, an admitted minority
>of the marketplace.

refer to my response to your other article.
the fact that libertarians are uncomfortable with a currency with
no inherent value only shows that they use their brains.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian