HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: GOOD NEWS IN PA!(Fwd:State gains two new official political parties)
Reply-To: rthomson@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Organization: Design Systems Division, Evans & Sutherland, SLC, UT
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 06:47:12 GMT

In article <2695@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>
	tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>The strong Libertarian Party showing in PA had something to do with
>coalition building.  Both the US Senate and Auditor General candidates on
>the Libertarian ticket were pro-life.  Their opponents were each
>pro-abortion.  The Libertarian candidates attracted many pro-life voters,
>especially among the Republicans.

There's something wrong with the above paragraph to me.  In my mind, it
shouldn't matter whether a Libertarian candidate is pro-life, or
pro-abortion.  Their personal opinion on the matter should not be at
issue.  What is at issue is _who decides_?  Is it Big Daddy Government
that makes your moral choice, or do you grab your own life by the
balls and make the decision for yourself.

This latter idea (well, perhaps not expressed quite like that :) is
the crux of the pamphlet on abortion that the National Party puts out.
So I don't particularly care whether a Libertarian candidate is
pro-abortion or pro-life, as long as I get to decide for myself and
they (the Libertarian candidate) isn't trying to legislate their
personal views on me.

There are many great emotional arguments to be made on both sides of
the abortion debate.  I think those arguments need to be aired to
people who are asking for more information to decide these intensely
personal matters.  In other words, I think the pro-{life,abortion}
folks should both be getting their message out to the people who want
to hear the message.  My only problem is when they attempt to
legislate their views from the Toilet Seat of Power(tm).

So, if the "pro-life" campaign of this Libertarian candidate went
along the lines of "we're gonna send 'em to jail!!", then I would
definately have a problem with this.  However, if the candidate was
merely using shock imagery to persuade people that abortion is a
morally bankrupt personal choice, then I have no problem with that.

						-- Rich
-- 
		      Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted; Copyright 1992 Rich Thomson
UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson			Rich Thomson
Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com	IRC: _Rich_		PEXt Programmer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: The Draft
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:18:31 GMT

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>But, being human, we need humans to interpret a deliverately vague
>document.  If the supreme court holds a gun to our heads and tells us
>that the constitution means something that clearly isn't so, or even that
>we just don't like, it is supremely easy to ammend the constitution to
>make it explict and clear enough that if they continue to disagree,
>their impeachment is trivial.

All the remedies for bad judgement by the Supreme Court that you call
"supremely easy" require a majority agreement.  Naturally, their worst
judgements involve constitutional protection of individuals or
minorities from the majority.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Washington results
From: trif@bike.rad.washington.edu (To Run In Fear)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:18:42 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle WA


These results are taken from the Special Elections section of the November
4th Seattle Times.  Information on percentage of precincts reporting is not
given.  This is an extract of the complete election results---only races in
which Libertarian Party candidates were on the ballot are included.

President of the United States -- Washington state totals
  Clinton -- Democrat		830,832 (44%)
  Bush -- Republican		589,545 (32%)
  Perot -- Independent		448,657 (24%)
  Marrou -- Libertarian		  6,203 (0%)
  Gritz -- Populist		  3,903 (0%)
  Hagelin -- Natural Law	  2,025 (0%)
  Phillips -- Wash. Taxpayers	  1,807 (0%)
  Fulani -- New Alliance	  1,493 (0%)
  Daniels -- Independent	    692 (0%)
  LaRouche -- Indpendent	    656 (0%)
  Warren -- Socialist Workers	    438 (0%)

Lt. Governor -- Washington state
  Pritchard -- Republican	898,690 (49%)
  Kelley -- Democrat		745,944 (41%)
  Nobody -- Independent		130,114 (7%)
  Isenberg -- Libertarian	 66,337 (4%)

Land Commissioner -- Washington state
  Belcher -- Democrat		961,449 (53%)
  Anderson -- Republican	801,396 (44%)
  McCord -- Libertarian		 66,130 (4%)

State Auditor -- Washington state
  Sonntag -- Democrat		900,653 (51%)
  Reed -- Republican		794,888 (45%)
  Rathjen -- Libertarian	 79,533 (4%)

Secretary of State -- Washington state
  Munro -- Republican		1,013,416 (55%)
  Dixon -- Democrat		  762,299 (42%)
  Willey -- Libertarian		   58,131 (3%)

State legislature 9th district House Position 1
  Sheahan -- Republican		18,295 (51%)
  Walker -- Democrat		16,007 (45%)
  Gearhart -- Libertarian	 1,334 (4%)

State legislature 17th district House Position 2
  Myers -- Democrat		23,183 (58%)
  Lucia -- Republican		15,272 (38%)
  Becker -- Libertarian		 1,579 (4%)

State legislature 27th district Senate
  Wojahn -- Democrat		23,469 (87%)
  Blachly -- Libertarian	 3,605 (13%)

State legislature 27th district House Position 2
  Wang -- Democrat		22,785 (84%)
  Shepard -- Libertarian	 4,355 (16%)

State legislature 48th district House Position 1
  Reams -- Republican		24,275 (59%)
  Tilley -- Democrat		12,833 (31%)
  Isenberg -- Libertarian	 2,199 (5%)
  Hedegard -- Independent	 1,571 (4%)
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The social contract
Date: 12 Nov 1992 00:52:59 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <BxGyny.CyF@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>It is trivial to "defect" (emmigrate) from the USA.  No one punishes you
>>for not immigrating to the USA.  Let me spell the analogy out for you:
>>condominium is like nation.
>
>Mike, I think a more appropriate analogy is: after you carefully
>reviewed the title to determine that it is association-free, no
>restrictions, you buy the house and then your neighbors condo-ized it
>with a majority vote.  Then they start telling you things like you can
>no longer park your boat in the driveway, no more overnight guests
>without association approval, etc.

Really?  Are you really more than 200 years old?  I suspect that the USA
was in existence before any of us moved here (or were born here.)  Thus, your
analogy isn't nearly as appropriate as mine.

>Here's where you usually say something like, "that's OK, it's easy to
>get it changed back to the way you like it, personal freedom and all
>that crap, just get a majority of the association to vote with you to
>dissolve it."

Sorry, but even most libertarians will acknowledge that the "association"
(government) is necessary for defense.  I'm not likely to make an argument
for disbanding the government.

>By the way, here in South Florida, at least, your analogy "condominium is
>like nation" would signal a serious decline for the United States.  The
>newspapers are calling it a crisis, so many condos managed by
>incompetent or fraudulent associations, discovering they can't afford
>ordinary repairs like new roofs.

I'm not surprised that all the idiots buying swampland in Florida are
unable to manage themselves.  (Alert for the humor impaired: :-))

Fortunately, the US government has more checks and balances than most condo
associations.  I wouldn't presume to extend the analogy so far as to
predict a US crisis, and I trust that you're merely joking.

>Finally, it is a preposterous stretch to say that moving out and selling
>your condo to avoid its association is like emigration to escape
>democratic tyranny.

Why?  Would you like to explain your assertion?  For example, there is no
shortage of examples of people and corporations who have relocated within
the USA to escape or enjoy democratically enacted restrictions such as
zonings.

Mike Huben

Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a
	   case brimming with such poetical emotion?"
Chancellor: "Distinctly."
	From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan.
From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Victory Party
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 20:37:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.221150.29990@esd.dl.nec.com> mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
>
>		LIBERTARIAN VICTORY PARTY
>		(for Dallas and Northeast Texas)
>		Tuesday, November 3rd
>		7:30 PM to 12 Midnight

Hi, Michael!  When are you running for Congress again?

>
>We expect the poll takers will be embarrassed when Libertarians receive
>much higher results than their inaccurate and misleading polls predicted.

How will they be embarassed, when the news media will not even report the
results of the Libertarian vote?

Avoiding embarassment seems to be built into the system.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: drg@candidus.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R. Guilderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Strategy
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:50:29 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <1d9rqbINNmjl@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

   There are millions of people like me who will vote for one of the major
   candidates even though they might prefer a minor one.

And you all deserve exactly what you voted for.  Reap what you sow and
enjoy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Paying for What Counts
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:10:45 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:
> The Individual:
>    1. eats - shits
>    2. drinks - pees
>    3. maintains 99 degrees fahrenheit
>    4. Seeks "adrenaline" ("adrenaline" causes cells to release 
>       sugar, fat and protein into the blood -- a "foodless feed".)
>    5. Avoids being "forced"
>    6. rests

you forgot #7. Works.

quite impossible to do numbers 1-6 without that.

> The People (government):
>    1. Provide food and garbage collection

food? no. my food comes from individual farmers who sell to 
individuals in the food distribution business who sell to markets who 
sell to me. where's the "government" come into that? my garbage is 
collected by a private contractor.

>    2. Provide water and sewer

depends on where you live. both can be provided just as easily,
more cheaply, and at better quality on an individual basis.

>    3. Provide homes, clothes and heat

nope. individuals built my dwelling, and i buy it or rent it from 
another individual who did. same goes for clothes and heat.

>    4. Seeks "adrenaline" (political vision -- patriotism -- pride)
>    5. Avoids being "forced" (self-defense etc)
>    6. rests (do nothing)

4 and 5 are true. unfortunately, we can only wish 6 were.

> Yet, like a libertarian, I'd like to see the government
> do less of #4 and #5 because I think the country
> is collectively too paranoid, too neurotic, about
> being the top military and economic power.

unlike a libertarian you seem to believe the government can or
should do #1, #2, and #3.

jason

--
would you could you should you cross thru if i could wipe my eyes a blinding
compromise another pinky shave enlightens the brow now cow to die another day
if you prefer outside be blessed sir ostracize better bastard now forgotten
well instead of favored son of hell in hopes to open eyes - scaterd few, U
,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: The Draft
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 18:41:22 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Nov4.035044.27485@samba.oit.unc.edu> Scott.Maxwell@launchpad.unc.edu (Scott Maxwell) writes:
>
>So
>suppose that there were an impending invasion but too few volunteers to
>defend the country against it. (Just suppose; it's a thought experiment.)
>In such a case, does the right of the majority of citizens to be protected
>against invasion outweigh the right of the young and able-bodied to refuse
>to place themselves in harm's way? If not, doesn't this severely limit
>the government's ability to perform one of its primary functions?
>

My personal view (although I consider myself a Libertarian, I certainly
do not speak for the party) is this. A country in which not enough people
are willing to volunteer to defend it is a country which deserves to fall.
I doubt this will happen, but if an invasion of America is threatened, and
American citizens are unwilling to sign up and defend America, then throw
wide the gates and welcome the invaders, because America will surely fall.

History majors out there: There have been drafts in the past, but in general,
they are drafts to form armies to send to invade foreign countries. Has it
*ever* been necessary, in modern times (like, say, five centuries or so),
in any country, to draft an army to defend the homeland?


-- 
__/\__  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
  \/    Marrou/Lord in '92!      | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Reply-To: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
	<1992Nov3.200153.29333@b30.ingr.com> <BxC4Mp.K3D@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:25:27 GMT

In article <BxC4Mp.K3D@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
   In article <1992Nov3.200153.29333@b30.ingr.com> craig@jido.b30.ingr.com writes:
   >In article <Bx44pE.44I@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
   BKY>   marxists ... in the LP.

   >Please name one, or retract this. Absent evidence, it's arrant
   >nonsense. Very bad form for someone who claims to apply Reason to all
   >aspects of life.
[irrelevant stuff]
  BKY>I know they exist.  If I told you that John Smith
   was an anarcho-communist would believe me then?
No, I asked you to name an anarcho-[communist|socialist] member of the
LP, which I still suspect you cannot do. If you meant merely that they
call/consider themselves "libertarian", then that's a different quibble.

- cP
From: spector@sumax.seattleu.edu (Mitchell Spector)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Election results?
Date: 4 Nov 92 20:23:43 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA


   So how did the Libertarian candidates do in the statewide races?  Did
anybody get the 5% necessary for automatic ballot access?  I noticed
that one or two of the television stations included some of the Libertarian
candidates in their reporting, but Isenberg, the candidate for Lt. Gov., was
conspicuously omitted.  (I say "conspicuously," since the Democratic and
Republican percentages I saw only added up to 90%.  Of course, "Absolutely
Nobody" was also running in that race.)

   And has anybody seen any nationwide results for the Marrou-Lord ticket?

--
Mitchell Spector
spector@seattleu.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1775 alt.society.anarchy:697
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: the most equitable economic system
Date: 10 Nov 92 03:39:24 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1da01jINNnl3@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) writes:
>>1.  Capitalism has been unable to develop at all a significant part

>It has not "been unable to develop" the third world.  It has succeeded
>in creating a state of dependency.  Imperialists have *purposefully*
>done this.  

As I stated in my previous post, it was never given the chance...these 
underdeveloped nations all have basically socialist governments. The two 
are incompatible. Unfortunately, one of the worst aspects of the Welfare
State, foreign aid, has merely encourage these governments to stay exactly
the same.

>>2.  Capitalism has left many countries including my own
>>underdeveloped.
>It didn't "leave" your country that way, it MADE your country that way.
>Let's get away from the idea that this is some sort of passive process
>that happens through some kind of negligence.

Completely and utterly wrong. I don't know about Ireland per se, but I know
Britain is nearly a socialist country (socialist meaning public, i.e., 
government, ownership of the means of production...regulations and taxes
are merely steps toward this goal.)

>>3.  Capitalism (of the market variety) has been unable to develop

>That's partly because they are not developing as free markets now, just
>like they didn't before.  I'm not a proponent of free markets, but I don't
>think that the monopoly capitalism of the industrialized and post-industrial
>nations really qualifies in that respect.

Nothing these days qualifies as a free market.

>>It is true that no other economic system has yet replaced capitalism

>Well said.  Are you in touch with Eugene McElroy? (emcelroy@igc.org)
>If not, you can get some great Ireland information and theory from 
>him.  If you can ftp, you can get some of his stuff on ftp.css.itd.umich.edu
>in /poli/INAC.

People, the only answers to capitalism are welfare statism of outright
socialism, and these are the two type of economies present today, so 
please quit blaming capitalism for the problems of today--it is not around.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)



Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1602 alt.politics.marrou:2078
From: asspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Alaska Libertarian results
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:40:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fnordbox Escape Committee
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC

These are dated 11/04/92 at 01.02 AM and are somewhat incomplete.  I
should be getting more complete results once I get home, but I don't
have a modem at home at present.

U.S. President (389/469 precincts)

Bush/Quayle (Republican)		66242		39.8
Clinton/Gore (Democrat)			51623		31.0
Fulani/Munoz (New Alliance)	  	  188		 0.1
Gritz/Minett (America First)	 	  917		 0.5
Hagelin/Tompkins (Natural Law)	 	  292		 0.1
LaRouche/Bevel (Independents for	  322		 0.1
		Economic Recovery)
Marrou/Lord (Libertarian)	  	  949		 0.5
Perot/Stockdale (No Party)		45412		27.2
Phillips/Knight (Alaskan Taxpayers)	  240		 0.1
Write-in votes				  230		 0.1

Obviously, H. Juan Peron had quite an impact on this election.  I 
would suspect that 40% of Peron's Alaskan vote totals would have gone 
to the third-party candidates instead.

Moving on...

State Senator District E (19/20 precincts)

Mike Neligh (Libertarian)		 385		 3.9
Judith Salo (Independent Democrat)	4908		50.8
Jim Zawacki (Republican)		3788		39.2
Write-in votes				 570		 5.9

**********************************************************************
Sean Patrick Ryan*****asspr@acad3.alaska.edu or sean@freds.cojones.com
3215 Oregon Dr. #2, Anchorage, AK  99517-2048***(907)272-9184****fnord
IRC: RadioKAOS***"Life.  What a beautiful choice."***Disclaimer?  NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Public Goods that libertarians acknowledge.
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 11:16:34 GMT

In article <1de4ujINN6st@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}In article <1992Nov6.100313.29052@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>
}>Well, we can ask David if necessary, but I think his point in MoF was to
}>argue principles first, utility second, because there are so few true public
}>goods.
}
}I'd like to get these on the table.  Would you mind listing or categorizing
}the public goods that you accept and that David Friedman accepts in 
}"The Machinery of Freedom"?

The only two I know of are national defense and clean sewers.  There isn't
really any definitive list that I know of, although it's a good question.  I
understand there's a book on this called "The Limits of Goverment" by David
Schmidtz, subtitled: "an essay on the public goods argument".

However, the criteria for public goods are nonexcludability, meaning that
none can be excluded from receiving the benefits, and the "free-rider"
principle, that some can receive the benefits without having to pay their
"fair" share.

My understanding is that it's the first criterion that's most difficult to
satisfy, but that the second is a bit tricky, too.  There are some cases
where most are willing to put up with some free riders, others where a part
of their property is taken, the benefit being just compensation for the loss.
I'd say that takings should always be the last resort.

There are also legal instruments for getting around the free rider problem:
have a contract that for everyone to pay a given amount for a public good that
only takes effect if all sign it.  This removes the possibility that anyone
who doesn't will receive the benefit anyways.

Our biggest problem at present is the innumerable private goods financed at
public expense.  I'll ask David if he knows of any other public goods.  It's
possible that some environmental problems, specifically ones relating to
global climate change, may qualify, if the problems exist.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: bright@hound-dog.unlv.edu (Paul Conte)
Subject: Nevada Libertarians come close
Originator: bright@hound-dog.cs.unlv.edu
Organization: UNLV
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 02:21:03 GMT

According to the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Nevada law requires that a minor party candidate receive 3% of the
total vote for members of congress to win automatic ballot access for
the next election.  By the way, the Libertarian Party is a minor party
here in Nevada.

- The total number of votes for members of Congress was 489,830.
- Votes needed by a minor party candidate to qualify the party was
14,695.

Libertarian candidate Tamara Clark received 13,384 votes in the state
Senate District 2 race here in Las Vegas.

ooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!

1,315 more votes!

Also, there have been some fishy things going on in Las Vegas with
counting the votes.  I'm not offering an excuse, just reporting the
allegations.  For example, in one really close race, a box of
uncounted ballots were found the day after the election.  The election
committee is under a lot of fire, and the chairwoman is expected to
resign.  Tamara Clark is one of those peeved.  I don't know if
there is going to be an investigation or not.

Maybe in the next electon!  Two years from now.

Maybe I'll run ...

Paul Conte
bright@unlv.edu
University of Nevada, Las Vegas