HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:00:34 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan23.094810.11319@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1jp74pINN64v@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>}Frankly, I'd rather pay more taxes to create fellow citizens than to allow
>}a resentful underclass to grow up looking for opportunities to rip me off.
>
>If what you're saying is that you would be willing to part with the money,
>then you could just as easily give it to a charity to do this, without
>coercion of anyone.
>
>If what you're saying is that such citizenship programs must be paid for
>through taxes, then I see no reason for this to be true.

No, what I'm saying is that it is foolish to try to finance public goods
(such as increasing the proportion of productive citizens to members of a
resentful underclass) by voluntary donation because of free riders.

You may not classify the above example as public goods like defense or sewers
(which I think I recall you and David Friedman support), but would you support
taxation for public goods that you acknowledge?  I do.

>Since you bring up the subject of resentful underclasses, I haven't read
>it, but understand that in "Resentment Against Achievement" by Robert
>Scheaffer it is argued that domestic aid programs are de facto resentment
>purchases which must be stopped if resentment is to be curbed.

Oh, I see.  Your "powerful understanding" now consists of hearsay as well.
Wow, I'm SO enlightened!  :-)

I've yet to hear you present a convincing argument from any of the references
you cite.  Is it because their arguments are bad or because you cannot
transmit them?

>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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire

At this rate, you're dreaming the impossible dream.

Mike Huben

"To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage
to proclaim what reason shows to be true."
	Bertrand Russell in "The Prospects of Industrial Civilization".
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The big difference
Date: 28 Jan 1993 01:34:23 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <19930127135450ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
>In article <1k6li0INN57m@armory.centerline.com>, on 27 Jan 1993 18:50:40 GMT,
>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>Do you deny that societies have created all rights?  If so, I'd like to know
>>how you know that, and how those other rights have come about.
>>
>Of course I deny that societies create rights!

Then please tell us where they come from.  And please tell us how we can
determine which claims of rights from those sources are correct.

>Would you claim that the
>Jews sent to the death camps in Nazi Germany had no right to live
>because the society approved of their extermination, or would you say
>that their right to live had been violated in those societies?

I would accord them those rights: a ruling portion of their society didn't.
Indeed, my paternal grandfather was killed by the Nazis, and my grandmother
spent the war in the concentration camps.

>Which is it?

There is no conflict between holding that rights are societal fictions and
preferring particular fictions for their benefits.

>Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
>Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
>University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
>ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams

Adams was wrong.  There's no supporting evidence for such rights.

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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: marks@halcyon.com (Peter Marks)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Social Darwinism
Reply-To: marks@halcyon.com
Organization: NCR Seattle Technology Center
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:37:38 GMT

jfh@yacht.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

>Okay, here we go again.
>
> [repetition of the old flame deleted: how Capitalism and The Market are the
>  optimal way, and the rich are doing everone else a favor]
>
>It's high time you figured this out.

Okay, here we go again.

The Market is certainly an elegant and simple abstract model which seems to
do a good job of explaining (in the way that models do this) one small
aspect of the world's behavior.

Wha t all the apologists (unwitting or otherwise) for the seemingly
insatiable greed of the rich (and others) seem to forget is that any such
model is a slave to its logical assumptions.  

The classical examples in the case of the Market Model are the positing of
equal/perfect consumer knowledge, and ease of supplier entry.  The trouble
is that these axioms fail to hold precisely to the extent that the means of
the players are different.  And this is the case, no matter whether the
initial difference was due to skill, drive, luck, physical intimidation, or
inheritence.

Even if there were some sense in which the Market model was the best among
all simplistic models of human endeavor, they are ALL poor ways to live.
Fortuantely we are NOT restricted to living so.

It's high time you figured this out.

P-)
-- 
     +----- Peter Marks, NCR Seattle Technology Center -----+
     | 15307 NE 202nd Street, Woodinville, Washington 98072 |
     |       voice:(206)489-0501    fax:(206)489-0601       |
     +------------------ marks@halcyon.com -----------------+
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Do Pragmatic Libertarians Belong in LP or RLC? (was Re: Party line)
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:47:01 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: brown@pollux's message of Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:58:53 GMT

In article <C1F327.GD2@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
>In article <parvin1.727938404@husc.harvard.edu> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>>
>>You can have your pure little party, safe from any internal strife... and safe
>>from making any kind of impact whatsoever.  You can require members to sign
>>a pledge which, however you twist it, calls for the elimination of taxation,
>>or something very close.

>>You just will not represent a decent
>>number of Americans, and will have alienated many that you could have
>>represented better than anyone else.

>If the only way to get LP members elected is to allow people who oppose the
>libertarian philosophy to run for office as Libertarians, why should there
>even be a Libertarian Party?  If I just wanted people who are slightly less
>socialist-leaning than the average to rule over me, I'd vote for Republican
>Liberty Caucus members.

This raises an interesting question -- do pragmatic libertarians
belong in Libertarian Party or the Republican Liberty Caucus?  I
define a pragmatic libertarian to be anyone who falls in the
libertarian quadrant (supporting civil liberties and free enterprise)
but who is not a non-coercion absolutist.

These are people who are equally offended at Buchananesqe cultural
warfare, Quaylist family values, tax-and-spend Clintonomics, and Gorey
environmental extremism -- but who perhaps support some (substantially
reduced) taxes or some (of the less brain-damaged) government programs
and subsidies.

Any RLC members out there want to share honest opinions on their
chances for having a real effect on GOP politics?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage.
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu's message of 25 Jan 1993 21:31 CST
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1993Jan22.111431.16248@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1k17smINN25d@armory.centerline.com> <25JAN199321310118@venus.tamu.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:21:44

In article <25JAN199321310118@venus.tamu.edu>, gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:

> In article <1k17smINN25d@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes...

>>Governments never denied slaves their rights because government NEVER forced
>>anyone to be a slaveowner.  Their owners denied slaves their rights.

> This argument is weak even for you.  You might as well claim that governments
> never established a postal monopoly since nobody is forced to work for the
> post office.

Actually, I think the analogy works better if you say that the government
didn't establish a postal monopoly because government never forced anyone
to mail a letter.

> The simple truth is, without the government enforcing laws
> which made people slaves in the first place, any "slave" could
> simply walk off his "master's" property and be a free man.  End
> of story.

At last, a realistic story instead of some neo-impressionistic
screed.

=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3833 talk.politics.misc:69190
From: rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: New idea for school vouchers
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:54:10 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan21.183433.27612@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>
>In article <93019.010831U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>, U16244@uicvm.uic.edu (David James Alexander Hanley) writes:
>> 
>> In article <C12Dsw.AC7@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
>> Rubin) says:
>>
>> >It would take little time to do this.  A private school could be established
>> >rather quickly, even within weeks.
>> 
>>   I have a hard time seeing how this could take place.  Weeks?  It,
>> I think, is a somewhat more complex process to set up a school than you
>> think.  Getting new teachers, administrators, books, getting investors,
>> students... Etc, e etc...
>
>Weeks might be pushing it, though a small school of an informal nature could
>probably be done.  A year or two would be plenty of time.  Announce now that
>starting either in the 93-94 school year of the 94-95 school year, a voucher
>system will exist, with the voucher of a sufficient value to give a good
>education, and there will be more than enough private school space by that time. 
>The schools will be practically breaking people's doors down trying to market
>themselves.

Sounds to me like another reason to use tax credits instead of vouchers.  The
tax credit plan would also allow for a tax credit to be taken for tuition
paid for other people's kids.  At first there would be a reduced number of 
people with the cash to pay for tuition for their kids.  As people in need
of the cash found people who wanted the tax credit the pool would grow.  At
first there would be a relatively small number of schools set up to take
students.  As new schools were organized and went through their growing
pains that pool would grow too.  

Of course the biggest reason to use tax credits is to keep the money out
of the government's hands.  We all know what happens when formerly 
independent organizations become 'recipients' of government money.

RJL

-- 
Rich Loether                   Snail mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl+@pitt.edu                       Computing and Info Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429                      600 Epsilon Drive
FAX  : (412) 624-6426                      Pittsburgh, PA 15238
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage.
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:36:01 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <25JAN199321310118@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>In article <1k17smINN25d@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes...
>>Governments never denied slaves their rights because government NEVER forced
>>anyone to be a slaveowner.  Their owners denied slaves their rights.  Owners
>>could and did free their slaves if they wanted to, several ways, such as
>>shipping them north or returning them to Africa (Liberia for example.)
>>The US government was laissez-faire on this issue, a hard-won compromise.
>> 
>This argument is weak even for you.  You might as well claim that governments
>never established a postal monopoly since nobody is forced to work for the
>post office.

In a way you're right: the first sentence is a non-sequiteur.  Let's get my
assertions straightened out:

Government NEVER forced anyone to be a slaveowner.
Slave owners denied slaves their rights.
Owners could and did free their slaves if they wanted to.
The US government never created a slave out of anybody.
The US government never took a pro-slavery position stronger than "if they
are property, laws concerning property apply."
If an owner freed a slave, he was a citizen and nobody could re-enslave him
or his descendants.

>The simple truth is,  without the government enforcing laws which made people 
>slaves in the first place,  any "slave" could simply walk off his "master's"
>property and be a free man.  End of story.

Not true.  The US government never proclaimed anyone to be a slave: their
owners did.  It wasn't government's job to keep slaves on the plantation: it
was their owners' job, which they performed with harsh physical coercion,
offering rewards for capture and return.  There were no laws making people
slaves in the first place: that was done by the owner proclaiming it.

Very simply, the government was hands-off on the issue of slavery.  Any
government involvement was limited to issues of property.  Any denial of
rights was done by capitalist owners: the US simply didn't affirm the rights.

Mike Huben

"Damn the Solar System.  Bad light; planets too distant; pestered with comets;
feeble contrivance; could make a better myself."  Francis [Lord] Jeffery
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?  (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:36:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) says:

>In article <1993Jan25.092833.6867@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>}In article <1993Jan25.073616.29180@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>}>Merely because people are inperfectly faithful to a principle is no reason
>}>to abandon it.
>}
>}Ah!  So minarchists are not welcome in Tim's LP?
>
>Inaccurate.  They may join, but may not support coercion for the term of
>their membership.  If you want to support liberty, welcome.  If you want
>to support tyranny, the incumbent parties are the experts.
>
You are splitting hairs.  By maintaining the oath, and by requiring strict
construction of the oath, you will exclude a great many minarchists...
including people like me, who score 100/90 on the WSPQ..the 10 points
being deducted because I can't swallow the idea that gov't can be funded
completely by voluntary contributions.

And, I'm sorry, but I can't accept a loaded term like "tyranny" to describe
my position.  That's a low blow.
> 
>}I have a lot of respect for you, Tim.  I've learned a lot from you.  It's
>}the 'radical' types like you in any movement that gets things done.  I'd
>}like to have you and a few more like you influencing congress.  I'd vote
>}for you because, in *general*, I agree with your view of how things ought to
>}be more than I disagree.
>
>Thank you.
>
>}But you don't want my vote because I don't agree with you 100%?  Sorry, I
>}think it's *you* who needs to go create a new political party.  I agree
>}with having an LP that welcomes anyone who fits in the libertarian
>}quadrant.  By definition, you would be welcome.  'Course, sounds like
>}you wouldn't want to be there.
>
>Votes, yes.  Money, yes.  Help, yes.  If you support coercion, though, I
>don't want you to be an LP member.
>
So you want me to give you money, to give you my physical labor and skills,
to vote for your candidates...but you want to deny me any voice in choosing
those candidates, writing the platform they will run on or managing the
party structure.

Right.
>
>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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The big difference
Date: 29 Jan 1993 00:29:11 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: vongole.mit.edu

In article <1k7d6vINN5e7@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <19930127135450ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
>>Of course I deny that societies create rights!
>
>Then please tell us where they come from.  And please tell us how we can
>determine which claims of rights from those sources are correct.

well, according to you, they come from whomever the hell wants
to define them. didn't you just blame slavery on individuals arbitrarily
categorizing people as property?

>>Would you claim that the
>>Jews sent to the death camps in Nazi Germany had no right to live
>>because the society approved of their extermination, or would you say
>>that their right to live had been violated in those societies?
>
>I would accord them those rights: a ruling portion of their society didn't.

doesn't change the existence of the right. societies cannot or should not
revoke rights on a whim.

>Indeed, my paternal grandfather was killed by the Nazis, and my grandmother
>spent the war in the concentration camps.

is this supposed to lend credibility to your "argument"?

>>Which is it?
>
>There is no conflict between holding that rights are societal fictions and
>preferring particular fictions for their benefits.

the real issue is not what rights exist but what rights *should* exist,
and how they *should* be defined.

>>Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
>>Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
>>University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
>>ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams
>
>Adams was wrong.  There's no supporting evidence for such rights.

typical collectivist dogma.

-=-
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: An absolutist LP is utterly useless
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 06:52:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.071256.6423@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>Inaccurate.  They may join, but may not support coercion for the term of
>their membership.  If you want to support liberty, welcome.  If you want

Tim, unfortunately such an LP will do nothing to move public
policy in a libertarian direction, liberate people, or however
you want to say it.

An absolutist LP will not elect anyone, because almost nobody,
even among libertarians is not an absolutist. Moderation gets
votes and wins elections and subsequently allows one to
implement policy. This is extrememly basic microecon. Look it
up. Or observe the success of Clinton vs the failure of Mondale
and Dukakis. To repeat: an absolutist LP will not elect anyone.

An absolutist LP will not persuade enough people to influence
public policy. Funny thing, people tend to be listen to people
they respect. People are highly suspicious of a political party
that does not try to win and pronounces an absolutist
philosophy. An abolutist LP will not be respected and thus will
not be persuasive. 

Even worse, an absolutist organization that is not respected
will attract mostly kooks. Kooks find it very hard to get
elected or to infuence peoples' opinions. 

Yet another bad thing: organizations that should be allied with
a kooky absolutist organization must distance themselves in
order to preserve their respectabiltiy. I am ashamed that Cato
must use the term 'market liberal' because libertarian connotes
faith and fanaticism. I argue that despite the platform and
pledge the Cato Institute is more consistently libertarian than
the LP in what it actually does. Why? Because the LP often runs
kooks who advocate just about anything under the sun. 

Summing it up, an absolutist LP will not elect anyone and will
persuade very few people and may reflect badly on the rest of
the libertarian movement.

So, I ask Tim and anyone else who advocates an absolutist LP:

	What's the bloody point?

		or

	What purpose do you see the LP serving? A social club?
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "There just is no end"
From: gehollinden@sdrc.com (David Hollinden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?  (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:44:51 GMT
Reply-To: david.hollinden@sdrc.com
Organization: SDRC



>In <1jt6a7INNk8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Brandon D. Ray wrote:
>> 4.)  If taken literally (as it often is) it cannot be signed in good 
>> conscience by minarchists, since *any* gov't involves at least the 
>> possibility of the initiation of the use of force...for one thing, you have
>> to oppose all taxation, for any reason, in order to be true to the oath...
>> yet a person could be willing to accept limited taxation as a necessary
>> evil, still accept *every* other plank in the platform, and not be
>> able to sign the pledge.

>You know, I hadn't thought it through in connection with the pledge, but I
>believe Mr. Ray is correct.

>Minarchists should take this is a big, neon-lit *clue* that there is a
>dangerous contradiction in their belief system.

As a minarchist, I must be missing the "dangerous contradiction" in my 
belief system.  How does a government, funded through voluntary taxation,
whose only functions are national defense, local police, and a court system,
violate the pledge?  If properly limited in its powers, it would organize
and codify the retaliatory use of force without initiating force.

>-- 
>					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>


--
David Hollinden               |  The only organized political party with a
david.hollinden@sdrc.com      |  Christian vision of morality is the
Repeal the 16th Amendment!    |  Libertarian Party.   --  Walter E. Williams
Opinions are mine, not SDRC's |
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA