HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:04:59 GMT
	<1992Oct3.141455.27405@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<ISBELL.92Oct4103839@panther.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Oct5.042718.4115@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu's message of 5 Oct 92 04:27:18 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
|}Well, if Mark Wilson is a libertarian then there's one.  I'd be
|}interested to know other libs who do.  I would have thought it an
|}obvious derivation fromt he central positions.
|}
|}Of course, Libs aren't Objectivists.

|Not quite.  There are Objectivist libertarians, like me, there are anti-
|Libertarian Objectivists, anti-Objectivist libertarians, and "believers of
|either faith" who are neutral to the other.

Right.  Libs aren't Objectivists.

|However, I'd be even more surprised to find an Objectivist who favored
|anti-trust legislation than to find a libertarian!  Rand criticized such
|nonsense strongly.

In other words, the original claim (from your perspective) that Libs
don't support the repeal of anti-trust laws seems wrong?  Perhaps, the
original poster meant the opposition to anti-trust laws--as a
concept--is not libertarian (as opposed to the opposition of "bad"
anti-trust laws)?  I suppose Mark Wilson can speak for himself, but is
that the consensus of others?

--
Peace.
          "Any Black man who's educated and speaks articulately is not 
           considered 'really' Black.  It's the same reason people think 
           you're a dyke."
"People think I'm a dyke?"
          "Take it as a compliment,  I've learned to."
                                    -Kyle Baker, Why I Hate Saturn
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: 4 legs good, 2 legs baah-d
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:54:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.091620.6641@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes:

}Since, as most anarcho-capitalists keep saying, everyone should be 
}trying to take care of themselves, why shouldn't poor people try to
}set up a government that gives them leverage against corporations and
}the rich?

sounds great, let's do it! here's my nomination for the national anthem
once we set up this new government:

    Won't Get Fooled Again
    ----------------------
    (Townshend)

    We'll be fighting in the streets
    With our children at our feet
    And the morals that they worship will be gone
    And the men who spurred us on
    Sit in judgement of all wrong
    They decide and the shotgun sings the song

    I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
    Take a bow for the new revolution
    Smile and grin at the change all around me
    Pick up my guitar and play
    Just like yesterday
    Then I'll get on my knees and pray
    We don't get fooled again
    No, no!

    The change, it had to come
    We knew it all along
    We were liberated from the fold, that's all
    And the world looks just the same
    And history ain't changed
    'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

    (repeat 2nd verse)

    I'll move myself and my family aside
    If we happen to be left half alive
    I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
    Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
    Do ya?

    There's nothing in the streets
    Looks any different to me
    And the slogans are efaced, by-the-bye
    And the parting on the left
    Is now parting on the right
    And the beards have all grown longer overnight

    (repeat 2nd verse)

    Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

    Don't get fooled again
    No, no!

    Meet the new boss
    Same as the old boss

-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences
Libertarian candidate for Delaware House of Representatives, 23rd District

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:21:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <ISBELL.92Oct2093100@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
 
> |If the employees of these "private security companies" carry guns, they
> |are cops, and they are coercive.  If courts can still enforce contracts 
> |and punish people who break contracts, then they are coercive.
> 
> There's an interesting axiomatic flaw here.  If I sign a contract but
> refuse to pay, I must be coerced into paying.  OF course, I maintain
> that contracts are meaningless.  My consent is internal and pieces of
> paper are irrelevant to that consent.  I can say I that I consent but
> not.  

Oh.  You mean "commit fraud."  <gavel>  Next.
-- 

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...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:47:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.143157.19681@hellgate.utah.edu>,
galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:

> In article <BvGGqy.7wx@acsu.buffalo.edu>, sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
> (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep30.091620.6641@hellgate.utah.edu>,
> >galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes...
> >>In article <1992Sep29.223953.26882@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
> >>nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
> >>>Because libertarians _define_ coercion to just mean physical coercion.
> >>>It's certainly true that being in a bad situation economically can lead
> >>>to you doing things that you don't want to do.
> >> 
> >>Cops kicking in your door to search your house is coercion, rent-a-cops
> >>kicking in your door to search your house is not.  Oh, yeah, I forgot,
> >>you had a choice when you signed your employer's contract--you could
> >>sign it and give up rights, or you could starve.  
> >
> >	Please spare us.  If rent-a-cops had no business kicking in your
> >front door, this would be an initiation of physical force and -YES- that
> >would be coercion.  BTW, anarcho-capitialists see the likelihood of that
> >as being equivalent to a major supermarket installing an electrified
> >floor (harassing customers is a great way to do business -- agree?)
> 
> In the past, many businesses did this.  Ford is the best example that 
> comes to mind.  He wanted his employees to live their lives according to
> his set of values, and he enforced it by sending detectives to search
> their houses.

Hmmm...  I think either kind of Cop kicking in a door is likely to
be shot.  Of course breaking into someone's home is illegal; Or did you
mean he has a warrant?  (though I think breaking in is still illegal).

> A libertarian would say that they agreed to work for Ford,

Please define "_A_ libertarian".  Is there only one kind of
_libertarian_?  This assumes that all libertarians are stamped of
one mold; And perhaps all Libertarians (not to be confused with libertarians)
are the same too, just as all Republicans and Democrats are completely
interchangable.

> so they agreed to let people search their houses, but these people had 
> little choice.  Besides what is preventing companies from using physical
> force?  And what if physical force is mentioned in the contract?

A shotgun with bird-shot would do nicely to discourage these intruders.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: loosemore-sandra@CS.YALE.EDU (Sandra Loosemore)
Subject: Re: Please let Marrou debate! -- and CNN's Crossfire
Organization: staff hacker @ Yale Haskell project
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 08:10:57 GMT

Interesting.  David Gergen made pretty much the same point on
McNeil/Lehrer Thursday night: if Perot is invited to debate even
though it appears now he has no realistic chance of winning, then
the Libertarians ought to be invited too because they are also on
the ballot in all 50 states.

-Sandra
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 4 Oct 92 22:01:42 GMT
	<ISBELL.92Sep30094920@panther.ai.mit.edu> <60777@mimsy.umd.edu>
	<ISBELL.92Oct1105721@panther.ai.mit.edu>
	<9412@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
	<ISBELL.92Oct2200542@panther.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: isbell@ai.mit.edu's message of 3 Oct 92 00:05:42 GMT


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)?
 
Another story from early last week:  in Chicago the school system
has--thru budget cuts--been cutting academic programs for the last few
years.  They were unable to engender a public response.  Finally, they
annouced that they were cutting all extra-curricular sports.  This
made the front page and inspired radio call in shows to raise the
money to save the programs.  Also, pressure on the school system was
brought to bear to reestablish the programs.

--
Peace.
           "When you control a man's thinking you do not have to worry 
            about his actions.  You do not have to tell him not to stand
            here or go yonder.  He will find his 'proper place' and will 
            stay in it.  You do not need to send him to the back door.
            He will go without being told.  In fact, if there is no back 
            door, he will cut one for his special benefit.  His education 
            makes it necessary."
                -- Carter G. Woodson, The Mis-Education of the Negro, 1933
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Utopia is not an option
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 06:21:49 GMT

In article <2OCT199218054981@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> secsu@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ralph O. Clark) writes:
}In article <1992Oct1.213415.2445@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes...
}[stuff deleted]
}>"Utopia is not an option".
}>
}
}Exactly what does this mean?
}Possible interpretations:
}	1) Nobody said that all problems would go away in Libertaria,
}	so stop criticizing Libertaria for having some problems.

A better way of putting this would be: we don't have to prove that our system
wouldn't have any problems, just that it would have less than any other.

}	2) Libertaria is the Right Thing to Do, so work for that goal
}	even if problems arise.

Not really.

}	3) ???
}
}Also, where does the phrase come from? I've seen it many times in
}the groups frequented by libertarians.
}
}Ralph

It's origin is probably from the Harvard philosophy professor Robert Nozick's
book "Anarchy, State, Utopia".  He explains the distinction between making
one's goal an end-state which society is to approximate and viewing society
as a process which should be free to take place.  This is philosophically
based upon the distinctions between the Austrian school of economics and
the other ones which take a state of equilibrium as their goal.

Libertarians aren't end-statists.  Christian theocrats (and Islamic ones, for
that matter) are, as are eco-fascists like Jeremy Rifkin, and many others.
We're dynamists.  We want change to be as open and free as possible forever.
End-statists want everything changed to fit their mold of the good society,
and then want everything stopped.


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
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:59:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Half-page Interview with Marrou in San Jose Mercury News
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian

In alt.politics.libertarian, gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:

> A- You cannot.  Utopia is not an option.  However, I guarantee that
> with private schools the quality will be much higher on the average and
> the cost will be much lower on the average.  Grades K-12, the average
> private school costs $2,000 to $5,000 per student per year.  The
> average government school costs $6,000 to $9,000.

Is this a money back guarantee?                     

> 	Why is it so anathema to the government of every country in the
> world to leave the people alone?

This is an interesting question, and I suspect that Mr. Marrou
does not know the answer.

doug
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com (Les Bartel)
Subject: Bush challenges Clinton to debate
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:37:30 GMT

OK, now Bush has challenged Clinton to a debate.  Is our favorite
candidate going to invite himself to that debate?  Bush welcomed
Perot to join the debate if he decided to run for pres.  I would
very much like to see these candidates discuss their solutions
to our current problems together.  Who knows, they might all
learn something from this (though they should have all done their
homework by now).

 - les

-- 
Les Bartel			lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Intergraph Corporation
Huntsville, AL			(205) 730-8537

There are three kinds of people in the world:
Those who can count, and those who can't.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:470 alt.society.anarchy:286
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:16:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct1.094807.8167@hellgate.utah.edu>, galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) 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:kicking in your door to search your house is not.  Oh, yeah, I forgot,
> >GA:you had a choice when you signed your employer's contract--you could
> >GA:sign it and give up rights, or you could starve.  
> >
> >Or you could choose to sign on with another company.
> 
> Unless all companies used the same standard contract.  Remember, there
> would be no anti-trust laws to prevent companies from joining together
> to preserve their common interest.  

Right.  As if, say, Ben and Jerry's would never consider hiring someone
that was turned down by Dow Chemical.  Or folks who got flushed by Watson
shouldn't bother even applying to Wozniak.  Companies often have less
"common interest" than you might like to think.
-- 

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...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: larry@labrador.fishkill.ibm.com (Larry Pieniazek)
Subject: Re: FAQ?
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 13:29:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: lar@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: Ya, right!

In article <BvnxrM.LHn@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>,
pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson) writes:
> 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:
[ Lib party may have an elitist/bookworm reputation ]
> >
> >--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"

Well, IMNSHO, this is a no win situation since if we don't pick people that
have degrees we get accused of nominating candidates that have no experience
with how to do things (as if being a local politician is good on the
job training for looting larger treasuries) and if we do, we're "elitist".	
Sigh.

-Lar

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','
`,` Democrat:    Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,`
`,` Republican:  Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems.  `,`
`,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems.        `,`
',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','

Marrou/Lord in '92

#include <std_disclaim.h>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:565 alt.society.anarchy:350
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:30:04 GMT
 <1992Oct3.203813.12798@shearson.com> <parvin1.718214048@husc11> 
 <1992Oct5.021852.25657@shearson.com> <parvin1.718259821@husc11> <9473@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>In <parvin1.718259821@husc11> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:

>>Suppose it's the dead of winter, and you are the sole provider of heat in
>>my community.  Now I have three choices: I can move, I can freeze, or I can
>>buy your product.  So, assume I'm poor and have no place to move to.  I
>>then have the "choice" to buy your product or freeze to death.

>A good capitalist wants to maximize his returns over time.
>By charging too much one of several things will happen.

>1) His customers die.  (Freeze to death)  No more profit there.
>2) His customers leave.  (As soon as the weather turns nice everyone splits.)
>3) His customers start finding alternate methods of staying warm.
>4) Enticed by the huge profits he is making, a competitor in a nearby town
>	sets up camp and starts to offer competition.

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

1) They pay the price. The cost can be bourne, by cutting back elsewhere.
2) They can't afford to leave.  There are other costs besides heat.
3) Not much they can afford to start up besides a fire in the fireplace.
4) The market is such that the cost of entrance and the resultant competition
exceed the limit of the projected long-term profits, which are, of course
discounted more and more the further into the future we go.

The argument that any high-profit area will soon be overflowed with competition
willing to look for long-term gain ignores the lesser value attatched to
future money by all "good capitalists."

This reminds me of a sales pitch I once heard for a resort time share.  The
cost of rental was about $500/wk, so having one week for ten years was
supposedly worth $5,000.  And having one week in it for the rest of your life
was worth $50,000.  Wow!  I wonder how much it would cost to own one of these.
Let's see, 52*$5,000 = $2,600,000.  And that's just a fifty year lease ;-)


-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: conroym@news.colorado.edu (Matthew Conroy)
Subject: Re: "Child Abuse"
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:43:38 GMT

In article <BvEs86.ICH@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
> I wrote:
>>This seems quite inconsistant with libertarian ideals...
>>
>>The child is forced by the state to attend school, and then
>>is violently attacked by those employed...the child never
>>agreed to obey any rules, with or without threat of
>>violence...
>
>"violently attacked?"  Enough said about exaggeration.
>

The child is subjected to violence; this violence is caused by
another person, hence they are attacked violently.

>It should be obvious by now that the government forcing anyone to go to
>school is not libertarian.  However, people enjoying/suffering the
>consequences of their actions is very libertarian, and parents telling
>their children, "go to a school I approve or go live on your own (always
>an implied option in the libertarian household)," is certainly
>acceptable.
>

An implied option? A libertarian household?

This is not an option in the society of today, in the
sense that the parents would be guilty of currently
illegal acts (negligence, &c).   
A child does not have any (legal) options about where
to live, or where (or, indeed, whether) to go to school.
Now, in a libertarian society what happens? A couple
produces a child; is the child considered an 
individual (an adult, even) from day one? Do the parents have any
responsibilities to the child? 
Or, is it their property? What's the deal?

Now, since this 'go to the school i choose or move out' thing 
is not a valid option in this society, how would one
go about changing this society into one in which this 
was an option? Where would a six year old go if they
were beaten at school ?  What criteria would such a child
use in determining its education source?  What laws 
would have to be repealed ?

>I was told when I went to school that If I misbehaved excessively, I'd
>get spanked.  I did and I did.

I find it interesting that, among people i talk to,
those who advocate violence are usually the ones who have
been its victims...how very odd.

matt
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:431 alt.society.anarchy:264