HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: What's GNP, anyway?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:16:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.000754.9151@vela.acs.oakland.edu> w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
>
>In article <37569@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>

[stuff deleted for bandwidth]

>Something I've been meaning to ask the econ majors about for a long time:
>What is this per-capita income, anyway?  I know it's defined as GNP/population,
>but some things about the figures disturb me.
>
>We've all heard of countries with per-capita income in HUNDREDS of US dollars
>per annum.  I assume it's safe to say, if you treat lodging in homeless
>shelters or meals in soup kitchens (or other relief efforts) as income; that
>anyone would LITERALLY starve to death in the United States with an "income"
>of, say, less than $2000/yr. (which I think is a very low guesstimate).
>
>It seems obvious to me that the, say, $500/year that a third world country's
>per capita income might be quoted as, is failing to account for SOMETHING.  So
>what is this something?

I've thought about that question myself, and I think the answer is partly
that people in such countries do a lot of barter and partly that local
prices are much lower than they are in the US. Also, (though I don't think
that this is as major a factor), people may only be reporting a fraction
of their incomes.

I have an impression that quality of life can vary a _lot_ among countries
with those average incomes in the hundreds of dollars--that in some, people
may not have much, but they aren't generally dying of poverty, and in
other such countries, they are. (This is only an impression--I don't have
any particular countries in mind.)

Nancy Lebovitz
nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu

>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Walter Lee    w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
>
>Don't blame me, I didn't vote!
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The social contract
Date: 13 Nov 1992 17:12:17 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <BxMAyv.Gv6@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>Just what level of individual freedom do you support?  Do you think the
>level of individual freedom should be decided by a majority?
>...
>Do you think that only individual freedoms that are supported by 50+% of
>the citizens should be honored?

If you support the constitution and its process of ammendment, then you
already agree that a certain majority has the right to dictate the level
of personal freedoms.

Unless you are an anarchist, there has to be a way for groups to determine
the level of personal freedom their members will enjoy.

Consider dueling.  Should there be freedom to duel?  How would libertarians
decide whether it was coercion, violation of right to life, or simply
a private affair between "consenting" adults?

>Regardless, I'm going to try to convince people that individual freedom
>should be honored for both moral and utilitarian reasons, while you try
>to convince people personal freedoms be damned if, in your opinion,
>society "works" better.

Really?  The individual freedom to reveal our defenses to an enemy?
The individual freedom to obstruct building of public works by refusing
to sell or vacate?  The individual freedom to serve as a source of
infection or spread of disease or pests?

Unlimited freedom would work very well if there was nobody else affected.
Practical, working societies always have placed limits on freedom for two
reasons: first, to allow the work of society to proceede; and second to
deal with the reality that if freedoms are made stronger than humans,
then humans become the weak link of the chain that will be broken.  Thus,
the temptation to illegitimate coercion is reduced by substituting a much
lighter coercion.  (Takings, for example.)

Now, it's all very well to talk about vague mom-and-apple-pie good things
like more individual freedoms.  Everyone nods their heads at those, until a
specific example comes up and they realize the effects.  Feel free to get
specific.  Tell me a freedom you want to add.

You might also want to tell me how you want to get those freedoms added.
What are you going to do?  Coerce us?  Ask a majority of us to agree with
you?

Mike Huben

"Utopias now appear much more realizable than one used to think.  We are now
faced with a different new worry: How to prevent their realization."
						Nicolas Berdiaeff
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Date: 7 Nov 1992 17:13:05 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

| craig@jido.b30.ingr.com writes:

| >brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
| >   You need to discuss this with a real marxist.  You will find that
| >   marxists view themselves as agents of liberation, and that's why you
| >   find them 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.

| On the contrary, where do you think that the term "anarcho-communist" came 
| from?  Do you think there are none?  Do you think that marxists view themselves
| as agents of oppression?  Of course not, they run around proclaiming that they
| are for the liberation of the proletariat.

| I have personally talked to at least a dozen of this kind of guy, and I
| have spent a lot of time reading marxist writings and listening to the local
| radical radio station (KPFK).  As you might imagine, I have not maintained 
| close personal relationships with any of those people, but I assure you I have
| met and argued with them.  I know they exist.  If I told you that John Smith
| was an anarcho-communist would believe me then?

No one is denying that anarcho-socialists exist.  Hell, I even had a
housemate who was an anarcho-syndicalist.  Nor is anyone questioning
the fact that socialist anarchists consider themselves the true
"libertarians".  That was quite obvious from reading syndicalist
literature.

The issue in question here is whether you will find anarcho-socialists
in the LP.  You won't.

And don't confuse the belief by most libertarians that socialists
should be allowed to form their own voluntary cooperative to their
own specifications with agreement with socialist principles.

It is very true that, watching the news with my housemate, we agreed
more often than we disagreed.  However, his belief that capital must
be allocated democratically and my belief that private property is
inviolable were inherently contradictory.  He may be happy in a
coalition with the LP to reduce the size of government and to reduce
the coerced influence of consertative non-rank-and-file unions (like
the AFL/CIO), but he'd never consent to being a member of the LP.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
From: aa396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill Henley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Marrou's puzzling vote totals: Why & consequences
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:23:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


Even though I appreciate the efforts of Marrou and the previous
Libertarian candidates, and the chance to vote for a candidate
who is not purely the "lesser of two (or three) evils" I'm
forced to suspect Mr. Mohr may be right that the running of
presidential candidates under the Libertarian banner is doing
the libertarian idea little good and may possibly be doing it
harm (by causing people to associate libertarianism with
genuine lunatics like LaRouche or the "Natural Law Party".  I
know this argument has been round and round before, but perhaps
it's time again for the Party to re-evaluate whether having
a political party and running "fringe" candidates is the best
use of available resources for achieving libertarian goals.

And if the Libertarians are going to continue as a party,
it may be time to re-evaluate the party platform and do some
compromising with reality.  The Party runs ad campaigns
trying to tell the average American, in effect, "you're
really a libertarian and don't realize it"; but I fear this
is not really true.  If every American voter actually read
the complete LP platform, I suspect at least 90% would be
scared away by one aspect or another of it.  (Even *I*,
who have voted Libertarian in 4 of the last 5 elections,
might have thought twice if I thought the LP candidate
was actually going to be elected and put the entire
platform into effect.) Supposedly there are around a
fourth to a third of the electorate who are "economically
conservative but socially liberal" and therefore open to
a generally libertarian message; but I'm not sure many
of these are ready for an absolute minimal night-watchman
state, let alone anarchism.  

This is not to say that there is not a place for "purist"
libertarian thinkers and educators; but maybe that place
is not, at this time, in electoral politics.

-- 
Bill Henley, Assistant Sysop, Science Fiction & Fantasy SIG
ID  aa396
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Question: drug non-control
Keywords: drug control
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: us
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:31:50 GMT

In article <3bj1zqd@rpi.edu> ash@acm.rpi.edu (Arthur Hyun) writes:
>I have a question about the Libertarian position on drug laws.
>
>I understand the rationalle behind abolition of most control laws, and
>by my understanding, it would seem that the abolition of drug laws would
>make drugs cheaper and of higher quality.  Wouldn't this encourage more
>people to experiment with narcotics and therefore become addicted?
>
>This might not, of course, be precisely a problem, given that drugs could
>be of higher quality and better availability, sort of like caffeine, I
>suppose.  But I'm curious what the party line has to say about it, though.

I'm not sure what the "party line" is, but I believe that if all drugs
were legal, there'd be more research into safer drugs, and, if there's
a market for it, into the biological basis of addiction, so that it 
will be easier to get off drugs if one wants to.

(I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I suspect that people generally
bece addicted to drugs to feel better, not in order to kill themselves
or to ruin their lives.)

Nancy Lebovitz


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: burger@cscns.com (Keith Hamburger)
Subject: Re: Why????
Organization: Community_News_Service
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:23:43 GMT


sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:

>I think a lot more can be learned by listing a wide range of opinions
>on different political issues and then asking people to classify them
>as libertarian, liberal, conservative, socialist, etc.  I think there's
>a big difference between what people perceive us to be and what we
>actually are.  Once it's clear what people's perceptions about us as a
>party are, we can act to dispell people's mistaken ideas.

>Also, as far as just a general "sell" is concerned, I think the Political
>Quiz with the diamond graph on it is a good method.  A lot of people are
>surprised to find out how Libertarian they are, and they're a lot more
>receptive to the rest of our ideas once it's clear that they agree with
>us on a lot of things.

>Steve Conley
>sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

I have been thinking of this and have decided that this is a very important
thing to cover in such a survey.  Specifically, what perception do non-
libertarians have about libertarianism?  In addition, questions about what
they personally believe themselves to compare to their perceptions.  This
should be compared to people's voting patterns, education, and the like to
help us determine what markets are most viable for us to approach (if any).
 
I have been studying some of the ideas about such surveys and there is a
definite need to determine what questions need to be answered, a clear
set of definitions of concepts, and what the dependent variables (what we
want to find out is the result of what we are studying), independent var-
iables (what affects what we want to find out) and intervening variables
are.

Any comments, suggestions and assistance would be much appreciated.  Starting
with a good question/hypothesis would be a great place to start.
 

Keith L. Hamburger                                     (burgar@cscns.com)   
Libertarian Candidate, US House of Representatives, Colorado 5th District
627 Skyline Ave, Colorado Springs, CO  80905                (719)471-8880
        Economics is not dependent on politics for its existence
0
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Liberal FAQ
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:19:07 GMT

In article <1d9isnINN41c@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>If any of you have other questions or points you'd like addressed, I'm
>open to suggestions.

I respectfully suggest that you spare us.
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1649 alt.society.anarchy:667
From: denning@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Iain Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchyREFRESH
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:22:16 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Nov4.144959.10963@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> denning@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Iain Morrison) writes:
>> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>> > 
>> > It's a matter of perspective.  While I believe it's good for rich 
>> > people to provide charity, I don't believe they're necessarily 
>> > evil if they don't.
>> 
>> Why should the poor rely on charity? A touch demeaning dont you 
>> think. How can one justify vast differences in income?
> 
> we might as well ask how can we we can expect there -not- to be vast
> differences in income. ever heard the old adage that life isn't
> fair? at -no- time in history have there not been classes and
> differences in income. attempts at solving this "problem" have
> failed miserably or accentuated the differences.

Well I suppose we might as well give up then, and continue with the 
"best-of-all-possible-worlds" that we live in today. Gross inequality
is obviously a "fact of life". My appologies for even suggesting that
change is possible.

> 
>> > The person who deserves the bread is the person who worked for 
>> > it.  Period.
>> 
>> Nope. The person who deserves the bread is the person who needs it. 
>> Period.
> 
> again, human society has never operated this way. all attempts at
> forcing it too have only succeeded in taking the bread away from
> everyone. those who cannot expect a fair return for their labor will
                 
You clearly arent living in the same world as myself. Most people
work to survive - fair returns have nothing to do with it. The bosses/market
decides what is "fair".

> not work. those who expect a return because they "need" it are living 
> in a fantasy.
>


 
>> but there's the rub. Present western society isnt equitable. The 
>> skills society/marketplace deems as useful vary from time to time - 
>> at present intellectual attributes are valued more highly than 
>> physical skills, but this is a fairly recent phenomenon. People 
>> should be rewarded for achieving their potential, whatever that may 
>> be.
> 
> and who will reward them? the state? and where will the state get

The community in which they live.

> the rewards in the first place? by taking it from others. people
> are "rewarded" for their efforts when their efforts are useful to
> others. thus it has always been and thus it will always be.
> 

Pardon me for aspiring to a more egalitarian future.

>> The function of society should be to  protect the members from the 
>> baser instincts of its constituent members and to enable everyone 
>> to attain their maximum potential if they so wish.
> 
> society is nothing more than the interaction of individuals. coercing
> individuals to interact according to some social ideal about non-
> existant "baser instincts" is doomed to failure.

Who mentioned coercion? 

> 
> jason
> 

iain
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bill@isl.Stanford.EDU (Bill Moore)
Subject: individual rights and responsibilties
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 23:24:15 GMT


I agree in principle that people have the right to do whatever
they want without external interference. Two questions:

1. Obviously, one must amend the above statement with something
like "but you can't step on someone else's toes too much." Given
that, how does one determine what is "too much"? We all have our
own definitions.

2. Things are amazingly unfair in the world today. Some people
have a lot, some have almost nothing (materially speaking). To
some extent people have to take reponsibility for their situation,
but it seems obvious to me that in many cases it has to do with
the color of one's skin, religion, etc. How can we just say "OK,
government back off, we're on our own now", when these inequities
exist? A libertarian without compassion is a dangerous thing.

Bottom line, I don't think the world is ready for libertarianism.
People are too mean to each other. In an ideal future I could see
something like that, where people don't need government except as
administrators, and they live in harmony with each man and woman
doing as they wish with minimal conflict. You can call it what you want,
but I don't think it would work in 1992.

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rseymour@reed.edu (Robert Seymour)
Subject: Re: OBJECTIVISM
Keywords: objectivism, rfd, cfv
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:34:15 GMT
Reply-To: rseymour@reed.edu

In article <92315.212245LIB031@uicvm.uic.edu> <LIB031@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> Yes, somebody please create an alt.objectivism or even sci.objectivism
> group?  Thnak you!

	I think there was an official RFD for talk.philosphy.objectivism. Let's  
keep it alive and get a vote going when the discussion time runs out. It would  
be nice to have group for objectivism and related topics instead of dividing  
between talk.philosophy.misc, alt.politics.libertarian, and other groups. Since  
an alt doesn't need a CFV, we could also do it there as either alt.objectivism  
or alt.philosophy.objectivism. Any other thoughts (charter wording, location,  
et. al)?

--
Robert Seymour				rseymour@reed.edu
Departments of Physics and Philosophy
Artificial Life Project			Reed College
Reed Solar Energy Project (SolTrain)	Portland, OR
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: joebg@IASTATE.EDU (umbra)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Reply-To: joebg@IASTATE.EDU (umbra)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:40:18 GMT


In article <1992Nov7.084111.216@reed.edu>, rseymour@reed.edu (Robert Seymour)
writes:
> In article <37515@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F.  
> Hranicky) writes:

> 	The process of rationality is one which brings about necessary  
> conclusions. When I use reason to understand a certain scenario, I can only  
> arrive at one conclusion, no matter how many times I think about, or how much 
> focus is devoted to the process. I may not focus properly, and arrive at  
> another conclusion, but then I wouldn't have used reason.

UMBRA --) True. Assuming you have the same factual data, same perspective, same
principles guiding your actions. The problem is, can two or more people have the
same three prerequisites I mentioned?  If not (an the No answer, seems
empirically valid) doesn't this support a continuum model of reason where two or
more people would agree within margins of error. 	
 
> 	Reason is a process which takes in initial conditions and returns a  
> conclusion. Logic is immutable in that it has predefined laws which conclude 
> necessarily correct or incorrect conclusion. Given "P" and "if P then Q",
logic  
> necessarily concludes Q (Modus Pollendo Ponens); any other conclusion would to
> use a method other than logic.
	
UMBRA--) The first statement is probably true.  But by what means do we get to
the conclusions?

> 	You can choose to use logic or to not use logic, but it is impossible  
> to partially use logic (unless looking at multiple situations, in which logic 
> is used in some and not in others, but this is not what we are considering). 
> Reason is the process of applying logic to the situations we encounter  
> everyday. Thus, reason is likewise binary; it can be used or not used, but not
> inbetween. This is incompatible with the scenario of the continuum, so I
reject  
> that paradigm.
> 
UMBRA --)It seems to me that you make a large jump when you equate reason =
logic. In fact that makes you open to the Analytic-Synthetic, Skeptic, or
Lingual arguments.  
To be brief there are many logical things I can talk about or propose, but that
are empirical impossiblities. I seems that a synthesis of logical, empircal
(inductive), and intuitive thought processes make up what would call reason,
where a rational claim must be validated by logic, experiment, and intuition. 

I am definitely open to anyone's opinion on this please respond.


Joebg (UMBRA)

" When I came home I told my father that the making me do chores was just
another bourgieous oppression of the proletariat. 'You Dumbshit ' he responded
'I am the proletariat !!!' "     Jim Carrol
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1581 alt.politics.elections:22509