HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Will Libertarians clog up the courts?
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:21:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: UB

In article <1992Jul30.152518.22274@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>The people in the dope business now, when they can no longer make an
>"honest" living with a government protected illegal drug monopoly, 
>what are they going to do?   I think that just like before, quite a
>few of them will go the market where they have experience, breaking
>the law: arson, extortion, robbery, kidnapping, murder.   The people
>who are doing "drug related" shootings now, will be doing "robbery
>related" shootings and "asshole related" shootings in the years following
>repeal.
>
>Jim Del Vecchio

Support your right to keep and bear arms. :-)


-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: st1g9@rosie.uh.edu (Lee Preimesberger)
Subject: Building Codes - was Andre Marrou on Larry King
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:17:00 GMT

	Oops. VMS edit ate the author's names.  You know who you are... :-)

#>Of course not.  Building codes are supposed to ensure safety, not drive up
#>the cost of housing, but the simple fact is that they fail on both counts.
# 
#No, it's not a "simple fact" that building codes fail to ensure safety.  Please
#enlighten me.

	When I was a wee lad I used to work construction to pay off my
tutition bill.  Houston has a god-awful web of regulations and codes that
need to be followed and encompass nigh everything.

	Inspectors give plumbing and electrical work the most cursory
inspections.  They are, however quite eager to shut down a job site for
having the wrong sort of faucets or a naughty type of vent.  The worst
case of this I witnessed was the inspector forcing us to hack a hole in
a new roof and rip out a new waterheater exhaust cap because it didn't
quite match the approved one.

	I feel quite safe, thank you.

			  Lee Preimesberger
st1g9@jetson.uh.edu ----- Undergraduate Scum ----- University of Houston, USA
      "They went around and around.  Nobody smiled.  They just went
              around and around." - _Breakfast of Champions_
                                --+--
	Public key removed in hopes of getting the Hell out of VMS.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: privitization (was Re: Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord in
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 10:07:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.122604.14133@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>I think the problem is that people think that private business is
>automatically well run, competent and will make a profit.  That is a myth.
No.  People rightly think that if they are not well run, they won't make a
profit, and therefore will go out of business and stop wasting resources that
could be better used elsewhere.

>Just look at GM, what were they doing when Japanese cars were making inroads.
>GM was developing dud cars, that no one bought.  As a result, they lost alot
>of money.  They kept on paying the managemtn that cuased this in the first
>place lots and lots of money but fired the workers.  THis is not efficient
>planning.  Private business or state run business are no guarantee for
>efficiency.
GM was and is *still* being protected by the import quotas.  These cause the
price of all cars to go up by hundreds of dollars.  No import quotas would 
mean that the US car companies would have to straighten up fast or go down
the tubes.  The *huge* amount of money the consumers could keep and spend
on things they find valuable, rather than being forced to spend to subsidize
the car companies, would stimulate the economy in ways we can't imagine.

US cars have gotten a hell of a lot better, but very slowly.  If the gov
wasn't protecting them, there would have been a lot more pannic a lot
more quickly.  You would have seen drastic change in a hurry, and/or the
ones that weren't up to the challenge would have gotten out.  And today,
US citizens would pay hundreds, if not thousands, less for each car they 
buy.

As it is, the automakers are *still* crying that they're loosing money.
Right.  All the years of protection, and what did they do with the profits?
Ford of Europe is doing fine, and they recently bought Jaguar.  Ask
GM how Opel is doing in Germany.  If they had to fight the competition
head-on, I think they'd be investing that money at home first.  But they
don't, so they're not.  They aren't going to invest any more than they
*have* to in improving efficiency or quality, and our government keeps
that threshold lower than it otherwise would be.  So, they will *always*
be a little behind.

Because of protectionism, GM is a little more like a state-owned company
and a little less like a private company.  That's why they can get away
with the lack of efficiency and planning you so rightly noticed.

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism
From: craig@jido.b11.ingr.com (Craig Presson)
Subject: Re: Nomination for LP Mascot
Reply-To: craig@jido.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
	<1992Jul24.155847.10114@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1992Jul26.183042.21231@cas.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:02:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.183042.21231@cas.org> gag65@cas.org () writes:
   In article <1992Jul24.155847.10114@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
   >In article <1992Jul24.000715.19211@microsoft.com> chrispi@microsoft.com (Chris Pirih) writes:
   >How about the "Don't tread on me" copperhead?
   >
   >                                Nancy Lebovitz
   >                                nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu
   >
   Here's another vote for the "Don't Tread On Me" Copperhead for LP Mascot.  If I
   remember correctly, one of the reasons it was chosen by revolutionaries from
   the Southern colonies was due to its virtue of striking humans only when
   attacked--hence the "Don't Tread on Me" warning to Britain.  If this is true,
   I'd say an animal that has a "Live and Let Live" policy but is ready and able to
   defend itself against agression would be a worthy mascot for the Libertarian
   Party.
All of the above is true except that the animal on the flag is quite
plainly a rattlesnake, which has a much nastier reputation, mostly
undeserved.

Remember that the established parties did not choose their mascots,
but were saddled with them by editorial cartoonists. Best to work
toward the day when we start showing up in the editorial cartoon,
true proof of arrival, rather than worrying about what the caricature
will look like.

Our (many) candidates on the ballot here in Alabama will bear the
Statue of Liberty proudly by their names. There's no rule that a
political party must have an animal for its logo.
























--
--  *************************-><-*************************
    ** Craig Presson              pressonc@ingr.com     **
    ** Intergraph Corporation             MS CR1104     **
    ** Huntsville, AL 35894-0001     (205) 730-6176     **
    *************************-><-*************************
"The free man asks neither what he can do for his country,
nor what it can do for him." -- Milton Friedman




Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: oleg@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: What's a person? (was Re: Why is the LP platform pro-choice...)
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:31:15 GMT
Reply-To: oleg@veritas.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Organization: Palo Alto Killifish Loft
X-Disclaimer: I speak for myself only unless explicitly indicated otherwise

tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes:
>Or, we can try this: Something is a person if it can understand
>property rights.

There are some (tribal non-technological) cultures that do not understand
property rights as the Western Europeans do, a la the oft-sited "How can 
anyone own the land?" confusion of the nomadic tribes when encountering the 
property claims.  
-- 
"... i heard the droning / in the shrine
	     of the sea-monkey / palace of the brine ..." -- Pixies.
Oleg Kiselev                                             oleg@veritas.com
VERITAS Software                           ...!{apple|uunet}!veritas!oleg
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re:  FAA
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:50:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Jul23.165059.11560@esd.dl.nec.com>, mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes...
>From article <1992Jul22.184357.3963@ncsu.edu>, by slblake@eos.ncsu.edu (STEVEN L BLAKE):
>> 
>>   I'd be interested in hearing some reponses on the following issue regarding
>> federal government regulation of airline operations (FAA, NTSB):
>> 
>>   Let me state what I think would be a typical libertarian response:
>> 
>>   An airline would have an economic incentive (danger of multi-million
>> dollar lawsuits)  to not have crashes; therefore, in a libertarian
>> society, airlines would be compelled by economics to operate as safely
>> as possible.  Regulation of their mistakes would occur after-the-crash
>> through the court system.
> 
>Your answer is partly correct.
> 
>But, regulation of mistakes would NOT be limited to after-crash.
> [because of insurance, explanation deleted]

It is worth noting that airline fatalities per passenger-mile have *declined*
since the 1979 deregulation.  (I think that the overall number of
annual fatalities has also declined.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Primitive notions
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 11:22:41 GMT

>In article <1992Jul27.233115.10691@Veritas.COM>, oleg@Veritas.COM writes:
>
>> There are some (tribal non-technological) cultures that do not understand
>> property rights as the Western Europeans do, a la the oft-sited "How can 
>> anyone own the land?" confusion of the nomadic tribes when encountering the 
>> property claims.  

Now now, let's not be Eurocentric.  There are plenty of Westerners who 
share this primitive notion; we call them socialists.  All too often,
here in the U.S., we even call them Democrat or Republican.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: What is Marrou's position on research and space exp?
Keywords: Marrou, policy, space
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:04:26 GMT

In article <Bs2Jps.n1F@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas J. Nugent) writes:

|> "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges occur of such
|> a compelling nature that to miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an
|> epoch.  Space is such a challenge."
|> 		- James A. Michener 

Quite so, but remember that every dollar that the goverment spends on
space is a dollar taken away from companies and individuals--which 
might be very willing to spend it on sattelite dishes, worldwide
cellular phones, etc.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt)
Subject: Re: Libertarian ticket supported on Rush Limbaugh show
Organization: 250 Million Pet Rocks
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:13:46 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt) writes:
>>What evidence is there that the two parties have tried to "suppress"
>>the Libertarians specifically?  I've never heard so much of a peep
>>of recognition towards the Libs from them.  
>
>Look at the ballot access laws that attempt to keep anybody but the
>Demopublicans off the ballots.  Whoops, I just noticed the ".de" so
>you might not be able to look at them -

under a file cabinet in an unlit room with a sign saying 'beware of 
the leopard' 

>to clarify:  unless you are
>one of the two major parties, you are forced to jump through hoops to
>get your name on the ballot.  Some of the states have fairly
>ridiculous rules on the number of signatures you have to collect in a
>short time, and it's always interesting to see a state make it harder
>after you actually managed to collect the signatures and get on the
>ballot. 

	I was aware of the byzantine access rules that stand in the way
of third parties generally, but what I'm after is specific attention
paid by the third parties toward the LP.  The Libertarians often talk
as if they are something of a special thorn in the side of the two-
party system; at least that's the tone of the message that I was
replying to:

[someone says]
>>The democrats and republicans have been trying to suppress the libertarian
>>party since the beginning. Apparently they take it seriously.

But it seems that, ok with the exception of a few freak races where
one or the other party just can't find anyone decent to run on time,
the two parties don't seem to notice the Libertarians.  Talk to your
local Demopublican coordinator and I be they don't even know who the
Libertarians *are*, any more than they know who the AIP or the P&F party
are.  Apparently they don't take it seriously.

	I kind of wish Perot had stayed on, just to drive the 18th-century
electoral system to its absurd conclusion.  I don't see it ever being
mended without some kind of 3-way post-election deadlock.

--
Wayne Tvedt                                     wayne@mathematik.uni-bremen.de
                                              ...fold globally, expand locally
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:23:22 GMT
Organization: UB

One of the complaints about Libertarianism is that libertarians
view things from a different premise than other people.  I agree.
Let's take a look at those premises.

The one major premise that libertarians base nearly everything in
their platform on is one of conditional freedom, specifically:

	People would be much better off if they were left alone
	  to determine what is right for them, how they want to
	  live, and how they could go about doing it so long
	  as they don't interfere with the EQUAL RIGHTS of others.

I do have an example of a different premise, my housemate's view,
she believes that people are basically helpless and need to
be looked after by a strong central government.


Where do you stand?  (Not rhetorical nor aimed at one specific person)

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:95 alt.politics.perot:967 talk.politics.misc:34919
From: strake@coos.dartmouth.edu (strake)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot supporters -- we can still take the country back
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:09:45 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>I probably am not remembering the number very precisely, but my memory
>is that the 1988 "landslide" was that about 27% of registered voters
>chose George Bush, and slightly fewer chose Dukakis.  About half
>didn't vote for any presidential candidate.

When you say, about half didn't vote for any presidential candidate, do you
mean that half of the voters didn't actually vote, or that half didn't vote
for one of the two major candidates?

When I gave my numbers, I was speaking of the total number of people who
actually voted, not the number of people who were registered to vote. Apologies
if there was confusion on that count.

If the 27% that you give is of the number of votes cast, then my guesses are
wrong. If not, then who knows my guesses may still be right.

--
   _____________________                 strake@dartmouth.edu
  /  __/_ __  __     __  | "And finally, to these two who are about to wed,
 `--, /  /_/ /_/ /, /_   |  may he always have the last two words in any
 __/ /  / \ / / /\ /_    |  argument -- 'Yes dear'.  - Best Man's speech
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:241 alt.politics.elections:9258
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: Perot supporters -- we can still take the country back
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 16:01:36 GMT

  > >  I will not lie down and die like that, myself.

  >  I, on the other hand, will accept the reality of the situation, and
  >hope that we have better candidates to vote for next time....

  By "accepting the reality of the situation" you help to guarantee that there
will NOT be "better candidates" holding more political cards on the next
go-round.  By supporting a real, albeit weak, alternative *now*, you make it
possible to have a real, credible, alternative later.

  BTW, just what is the substantive difference between "accepting the reality
of the situation" and "lying down and dying"?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: What is Marrou's position on research and space exp?
Keywords: Marrou, policy, space
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:40:19 GMT

In article <+dwxt!#@rpi.edu> greenm2@aix.rpi.edu (Matthew Greenman) writes:
}
}What is Marrou's/the LP's position concerning government-funded
}research?  Also, how does Marrou feel about NASA, space exploration
}and research?  As a voter currently in the undecided portion of the polls,
}My vote could be influenced by is position of these issues.
}
}Thanks to all you LP'ers in advance,
}
}Matt

I can't speak for Marrou, but I can speak for myself, a Libertarian.

Basic research should be privatized.  Japanese firms have already funded it
in the U.S., and many more firms would if it weren't subsidized and they didn't
expect to get it on the cheap.  There's much data to support the claim that
public financing has decreased the value of research.

NASA is a joke.  They chose the worst design for getting payloads into orbit.
It's obeying Gammon's law of rising bureaucratic costs for statism like you
wouldn't believe.  Private space launch efforts (some Libertarian-owned and
operated) have made the best progress todards getting off this planet yet.

Have you heard of the L5 society?  It was dedicated to the goal of building
and moving to a space colony in the 5th LaGrange zone between the earth and
its moon.  It was founded by a libertarian named Keith Henson and his then-
wife, Carolyn.  It included scientists, writers, etc., as members, from
academics who could testify impressively before Congress to radicals like
Timothy Leary.

On a purely goal-oriented standard, the L5 society had a very low opinion of
NASA.  L5 also opposed the UN Moon Treaty, which is also a plank of the LP
platform.

Everyone I know in the "space business" would like it privatized, so it
could finally actualize its potential.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Gore emits greenhouse gases
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:45:54 GMT


In article <1992Jul19.013604.19538@techbook.com>, 
szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) said:

> Meanwhile, he goes down to Rio, applauds Castro, stabs the U.S.
>                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> delegation in the back, and flies back first-class.  Gore emits
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> greenhouse gases, in more ways than one.

Oh no!  You mean an American citizen actually dared to express opinions
which were at odds with the Official Position of the Official U.S.
Delegation?  Horrors!

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: Perot supporters -- we can still take the country back
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 15:53:23 GMT

  >  ...the reason why I don't think one should vote Libertarian is that
  >this party cannot and will not win.

  Can you say "Self-Fulfilling Prophecy"?  I knew you could....

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 10:33:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.174409.28165@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>* A caller asked Marrou how he would tackle the homeless problem.
>>  Marrou said the problem was caused by zoning, restrictive 
>>  electric/plumbing codes, and other regulations that are designed for 
>>  the middle class and drive up the cost of housing beyond what the poor
>>  can afford.  If home builders were free from regulation, they 
>>  could build affordable housing and homelessness would be greatly 
>>  reduced.
>
>Sounds like snake oil, to me.  Those pesky codes aren't designed to drive up
>the cost of housing, they're there to ensure safety.  Should people be allowed
>to live in unsafe housing just because they can't afford safety features?  
Yes and no.  I know almost nothing about house building, but I know that 
plastic plumbing is still illegal in lots of places.  It is vastly cheaper,
takes less skill to handle, is MUCH easier to work with 20 years later when
things start needing repair, and is just as durable.  The only thing 'wrong'
with it is it reduces the need for expensive plumbers.

>The homeless problem isn't lack of affordable housing, it's an excess of 
>jobless, poor, addicted, and mentally or physically ill people.  Shaving 10, 
>20, or even 30% off the cost of construction won't solve the homeless problem.

Utopia isn't an option.  He said it would greatly reduce the homeless problem.
You critisize because it won't solve it.  I'd rather hear about plans to
reduce problems, myself.  Aren't you sick of seeing plans for 'solving' 
problems making the problems worse?  

What if we could shave constuction costs by 10+%?  This would put downward
pressure on the market, and eventually even existing housing would cost
roughly 10% less.  That is a LOT of money put back into the citizen's pockets,
to spend on things they value, rather on things they MUST buy.  That would go
a long way towards reducing unemployment.  Are you going to say it's a BAD
thing, because it doesn't ELIMINATE unemployment?

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections