HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:38:34 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:

[FDIC, S&L scam]
>[Barry:]
>> It WAS insurance, what are you talking about?

>It was no such thing.  If the program had been actuarially sound,
>we would not be in the unpleasant position of being forced to
>ante up 500 billion big ones.  It was a government guarantee
>against stupidity, greed, dishonesty, and foolishness.  It was an
>attempt to legislate away some of the less desirable aspects of
>human nature.  Worked like a charm, wouldn't you say?

Okay, so let's look at the biggest non-governmental insurance
scheme, that claims to be actuarially sound: i.e. Lloyd's.
Why is it that they are claiming that without governmental
guarantees they could well go bankrupt, leaving so many
billions of claims hanging in thin air?

The point is that if they did so, as could happen in a libertarian
scenario, there would be a lot of suffering; and, just like in
the '30s, some politician would come along and say "Never again!
We'll have a governmentally backed insurance scheme, so that
(voting) paupers won't have to die of malnutrition again!"
And you're back where you started...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.
From: leonard@mimsy.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Social contract?  [Re]+visited
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:35:07 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Deep Thirteen, Gizmonics Institute

Mike Huben writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.170402.17174@zip.eecs.umich.edu> positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) attempts to mock me, but shows his ignorance instead:
>>mrh@centerline.com (Huben the Authoritarian) saith:

The personal attack on both of your parts is not flattering to either
of you.  Why do that?  Why not respond to the ARGUMENTS that the other
party presents, rather than gratuitous personal attack?


>>I was born here, now I'm told "be taxed or leave".
>>Where's the mutuality in that?
>
>If you were born here, then your parents freely made the choice for you.

Uh huh.  This line of reasoning does not strike me as very promising.


>At any time, you can select another nation to live in.  

True, but not to the point.  The nation exists to serve its citizens,
not the other way around.  (Although I suppose nations of the
authoritarian strip might dispute this idea.)


>There is no secret
>about the fact that if you choose to live here you must abide by the laws:

Tell that to Martin Luther King.  My point, for the obtuse, is that simply
because a law is on the books does not mean it is just, fair, or moral.


>every immigrant explicitly agrees to that.  

True.  And no non-immigrant does.  Most people are natives.


>Those laws are created by the
>process of mutual agreement called representative democracy.

But does this validify them as a contract?  Some people think not.


>A contractual requirement of residing in the USA is paying taxes.  You've
>entered into the contract freely (as I pointed out above.)  Non payment of
>taxes is fraud which you have initiated, plain and simple.

Given your premises above, this seems reasonable.


>The social contract with our government shows characteristics of many 
>kinds of common agreements.  [Similarities deleted.]

And likewise, it shows differences as well.  These strike some people
as more important than the similarities; indeed, arguing that a thing
shows characteristics of items in a class is not sufficient to place
it in that class.


>(I'm going to be so glad not to have to explain this over and over once my
>FAQ is completed.)

Many people, including myself, sense a very strong and fundamental
difference between a normal contract like that we might agree to with
a credit card company and the sort of "contract" that exists between
us and our government.  I hope you include arguments against the
existence of, or more properly, the validity of, the social contract
in the FAQ.  Otherwise, you will achieve little on this group by way
of reducing volume.

-Leonard



Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:35:16 GMT

In article <ARCHER.669.726508486@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>
>Perhaps you can help me with something:  I am a practicing civil libertarian 
>and generally support libertarian ideals, but there seems to be something 
>missing.
>
>The basic tenet of libertarianism is that there should be no coercion of the 
>individual to act in a manner he does not desire to act in.  This is further 
>defined out as the initiation of physical force or "mental force", fraud.  
>These are two abuses of power that are covered.  Formal libertarian doctrine 
>does not seem to address the abuse of economic power. The problem that most 
>contemporary liberals have with libertarianism is that is fails in this area.
>
>Here is a grossly simplifed example:  Joe Richguy wants my land, and I 
>refuse to sell.  So joe buys all of the land around my land and forbids me 
>to trespass unless I sell.  Thus, _I_ am forced to sell my land or live in 
>isolation.
>
>How does libertarianism address this?  I can't seem to puzzle it through.
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

	I would say that most libertarians hold "abuse of economic power"
to be definitionally impossible.  In your example you purchased a piece of
property, and didn't bother to guarantee that you had a method of egress
and ingress.  Simply put, why didn't you sign a contract with one of your
neighbors who borders on the road?  Further, have this contract apply to
the deed and not the owner.
	Basically a libertarian would hold that the above is your fault,
due to lack of planning and forsight.

__JMB



Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3290 comp.org.eff.talk:8522 soc.culture.usa:9655 alt.activism:20267
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 9 Jan 93 15:06:48 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
> >I don't want big companies to be responsible to repair damages they
> >make.  Currently the government taxes us, using guns if necessary, 
> >to pay into environmental clean-up funds.  Libertarians would have 
> >wanted to have Exxon to pay for all the clean-up of their actions.
> 
> Huh?

great retort. what is it that you don't understand? is the concept of
people/companies cleaning up their own mess too complex to understand?
funny, i learned that when i was 4. 
 
> >If they were forced to pay their own insurance (instead of tax 
> >money going into a super fund.), the whole accident may never have 
> >happened.  It would have been likely that they would have been 
> >more careful as required by a private insurance company that 
> >promised them lower rates for certain safegaurds such as a double 
> >hulled ship and sobriety testing.
> 
> Wake up and smell the coffee, there would BE NO INSURANCE in the 
> world you want.

the hell you say. NOTE TO EVERYONE: if our government ever goes 
libertarian -i'm- starting an insurance company. anyone with any 
experience is welcome to apply. do you have -any- idea of the demand 
that will exist for insurance when individuals realize that nobody 
else is going to pay for their mistakes?

with the increase in demand a well managed insurance company should
be able to make a killing, or at least a comfortable profit over the
long run.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`        "Giving money and power to government is like giving         `,`
`,`        whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" - P.J. O'Rourke        `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3356 comp.org.eff.talk:8588 soc.culture.usa:9696 alt.activism:20354
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:17:42 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <BZS.93Jan9144659@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:


|The problem I am trying to point out, ultimately, is that eliminating
|govt (perhaps just severely) is at best a questionable solution. The
|problem obviously has much deeper roots. Govt at least is somewhat
|answerable (in western democratic system), even if not perfectly so.
|Private corps. etc are much less answerable in general, the average
|citizen has little influence on the general course of private corps
|except in very proscribed ways (I am not saying that is bad, I am just
|pointing out the difference.)

My one dollar has more impact on most corps. than my one vote has on
most politicians.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Date: 13 Jan 1993 02:20:17 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan13.015935.13567@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

> >What, we base the law on the sender's intent? 
> 
> 	Yes, we generally do this.  For example I could get charged with
> murder ! (death or life imprisonment) or Manslauter 2 (probably just
> probation) based solely upon intent.  Besides, werre talking about
> property rights here.  Generally the owners opinion is an important one.

No, such laws are based on the OFFENDER's intent.  In your case, the 
offender is the listener, not the broadcaster.  According to your rules, 
the listener is or is not committing an offense depending solely on the 
motives of the transmitter.  Not bloody reasonable.

> >How about police radar?
> >How about police scanners?  How about FBI radio bugs?  
> 
> 	What about them?  I don't see what your getting at.

Well, police don't WANT you to detect their radar, and many of them
would rather you don't listen to their voice transmissions (at least,
for example, not in a parked car outside a bank).  Using your own
logic:

> >("I swear, your honor, at the time I broadcast,
> >I really DIDN'T want anyone else to hear that.") 
> 
> 	Then why did you braodcast it.  My guess it the Judge would think
> you were full of it.

the police could not complain that I intercepted their radar.  Right?

Sorry.  Having the criminality of an act depend on the unprovable motives
of a third party is a little too nondeterministic for me.
-- 

cdt@rocket.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: schmidt@netcom.com (Margret B Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Paying for education
Summary: Liberty has not historically limited generosity towards education
Organization: Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate Services
Distribution: inet
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 12:42:41 GMT

 "The distribution of capital-intensive education has ALWAYS been
 "predominantly to the wealthiest EXCEPT where government subsidy
 "occurs."

I think it remains to be demonstrated by you that government subsidy
does actually change the distribution of education to a group other
than the wealthiest segment.  In Milton Friedman's "Free-to-choose"
(book and TV series) he compared the student bodies of UC Berkeley and
UCLA with that of Stanford and demonstrated that the wealthy are no
less likely to choose the taxpayer-funded schools than they are the
voluntarily funded schools.  The more easily demonstrated
redistribution is of wealth from the average taxpayer (who does not
attend college) to the college-educated one, who is, on average,
wealthier than the average taxpayer.  As long as legislators are
wealthy, I do not expect them to create any restrictions that prevent
the wealthy from sending their children to the schools funded by all
taxpayers.

 "There is a basic problem of anarchistic libertarianism in that little
 "money will be invested in schemes where it is uneconomic to collect
 "fees from the beneficiaries.  Such as risky educational loans.  Or
 "public goods."

This doesn't jibe at all with the history of education.  The majority
of the 3300 colleges and universities in the US were founded by
voluntary, private contributions.  The average student at a private
college pays only 39% of the cost of his education.  (If I understand
Table 243 of the Statistical Abstract of the US correctly, this
includes both payments contemporary with the education and later
repayments of any student loans.)  In 1984 (the last datum in my 1987
edition of the SA) the sum of the "little money" you expect to be
invested in voluntarily-funded colleges was $30 billion (albeit $3.9
billion of that was stolen from taxpayers).  Apparently there are a
few good people whose motives are not purely economic and whose
generosity is with their own money and not other people's.

-- 
Margret Buckley Schmidt  Coldwell Banker Residential  (415) 329-1100 Business
Realtor-Associate(R)     Real Estate Services         (415) 599-1882 Voice Mail
                         1295 El Camino Real          (415) 328-4956 Facsimile 
schmidt@netcom.com       Menlo Park, CA  94025-4295   PRODIGY: cvpv34b

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Who is protected from force and fraud by libertarian anarchy?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:07:40 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: bzs@world.std.com's message of Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:10:54 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<BZS.93Jan8034450@world.std.com> <1993Jan9.001455.19708@athena.mit.edu>
	<BZS.93Jan9001054@world.std.com>
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:45:11

In article <BZS.93Jan9001054@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

> From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)

>>The S&L scandal was brought about by an *increase* in regulation,

> Actually, no, it is generally laid to the deregulation of the banking
> under the Reagan administration.

That something is generally believed is not a reliable indicator
of its accuracy.  As I have pointed out in a previous article,
the "deregulation" of the savings and loan industry, such as it
was, did not cause the subsequent collapse.  Perhaps more
important is that blaming the crisis on a frenzy of deregulation
promulgated by the Reagan administration is the worst kind of
disinformation.  The so-called "deregulation" of the S&Ls was a
product of the Carter administration, the same folks who brought
you "stagflation" and the ever unpopular "malaise," to say
nothing of "lust" in the heart.  Not that it couldn't have
happened in the Reagan years, though.  As I took some pains to
point out, the game is non-partisan, or at least bi-partisan.
But the partisan declaimers against the heartless atrocities of
the Reagan/Bush era should properly make some attempt to find an
atrocious act that was actually perpetrated by one of them before
launching their missives of contempt, however.

Our elected representatives, regardless of party loyalty, made a
clear choice to ignore human nature and reality in favor of
political hay.  Why?  Because they can.  Because they needn't
trouble themselves to do their betting with their own money.
That's the nature of the sordid little game that they play with
our chips.  And you can't shut down the game by throwing the bums
out and installing new bums, with or without term limits and
other seemingly clever artifices. You can only do it by taking
your chips back.  That means doing without all the wonders of
government largesse and saying an emphatic NO to at least the
additional programs and "benefits" that the players would have us
believe we need in order to promote "social justice" and a free
lunch for everyone (except the filthy "rich" whose noses must be
excised to spite the compassionate face of the downtrodden
hoard).

=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Chelsea, Schools, PLUS: slander? Limbaugh? Re: The New Education President
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 08:38:38 PST

In <1993Jan6.145900.6664@asl.dl.nec.com>, Doug Dillhoff writes:

>In article <1993Jan6.080542.12702@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umas
>In article <1idpqvINN845@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bra
>>
>>>It was announced today that Chelsea Clinton will be attending a private
>>>school.  Apparently the public school system is good enough for us plebes,
>>>but not for Mr. Clinton's daughter....or has he changed his mind about
>>>education vouchers?
>>>
>>
>>This decision was a tough one for Clinton to make, he dissapointed his
>>supporters and gave his detractors something to point and bitch about.
>>Being a supporter of Clinton, I'm a little dissapointed, but I can see
>>why he made the decision, and at least I can respect him for his guts.
>>He put his daughter's welfare above politics.  All you Clinton bashers
>>who claim that he always does things just to "get votes" or "please
>>everyone" should at least admit that this was gutsy thing to do.
>>But that would be too much to ask, I know.
>>

>I won't say it was a 'gutsy' move but I will say it was a 'slick' move.

>I hope he is beginning to move toward support of provate/public voucher
>system.

Judging by some of things he has said and done in the past, Clinton is at
least sympathetic to the idea in principle.  The problem is that the Democrats
are usually bought and paid for by the NEA and other teacher's unions.

In (I think) 1985, an official congressional magazine quoted the head of a
teacher's union (the AFT, I think) as saying (and I slightly paraphrase), "When
the children start paying union dues, then I'll start representing the
interests of the children."  With this attitude, the NEA would oppose school
choice even if they *knew* it would improve education.

The only question is how far Clinton can distance himself from the educrat
lobby.  The NEA goes ballistic at the thought of school competition which would
undermine their monopoly on educating the poor and middle class.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:54:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.163631.20197@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>
>Now, college is a requirement.

Yeah, whatever. Tell that to Bill Gates, _the_ most successful man in
America, next time you meet him.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/    Finger for PGP key       | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The World
	<1993Jan7.025741.4810@athena.mit.edu> <1993Jan7.121952.17573@eff.org>
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:14:29 GMT


From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
>>and of course inflation was pretty high during Carter's administration.
>
>The major cause of inflation during Carter's term were the continuing
>waves of price adjustments following the OPEC oil embargo and price- and
>production-setting strategies. These began while Nixon was in office.

Of course that's true.

What a lot of these historical revisionists seem to also ignore is
that Carter's chief "inflation fighter", Paul Volcker, who was head of
the Fed, was kept on by Reagan to finish what he started under Carter
to fight inflation and for years afterward until he retired and
Greenspan was appointed (when was that? Around 1987?)

So it would seem that as far as the Federal Reserve's administration
and policies regarding issues like inflation and interest rates the
Reagan administration didn't have much problem with Carter's choices.

And if you think Volcker just did what Carter told him to and then
later what Reagan told him to you don't know anything about Volcker.
He was one tough cookie who didn't need the work unless it was on his
terms and his way, he's an interesting fellow.

If anyone finds any of that specious then please explain to us exactly
what it was that Reagan did to get inflation down? It sure as hell
wasn't keeping federal spending under control, the largest rises in
federal spending in the history of the United States occurred under
Ronald Reagan's administration.

So what did he do?

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian