HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: International wage control (was Re: Libertarian history)
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:37:44 GMT

In article <4670033@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM> chan@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Chan Benson) writes:
>From: chan@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Chan Benson)
>Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 15:44:21 GMT
>Subject: Re: International wage control (was Re: Libertarian history)

>> Can you define 'fair' in completely objective terms?  If so, please do.
>> I for one would be absolutely fascinated to see what you think the
>> word means.  Any subjective definitions are, of course, completely
>> useless as a basis for designing a society, so I hope you won't waste
>> our time (and the net's bandwidth) with any such.

>What an impoverished life you must lead, believing that only the
>"objective" is real.

>Can you define "freedom" in completely objective terms? To my mind, 
>completely objective definitions occur only in artificially restricted
>domains; such is the nature of language.

>Just because you are not interested in subjective definitions as a basis
>for "designing" a society, doesn't mean that others aren't. 

>                        -- Chan
'Objective' is not the appropriate word for what you (or what I think you) 
mean here. The process of definition must be to some extent objective-or at 
least intersubjectively grounded, else how do you account for the 
possibility of any communication whatsoever?  What cannot be eliminated is 
vagueness in the application of concepts, but the view that that our 
conceptual scheme itself is intrinsically and unavoidably subjective is 
easily shown to be self-referentially inconsistent and incoherent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Libertrians and the environment, info wanted
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:38:08 GMT

In article <4670034@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM> chan@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Chan Benson) writes:
>
>[I hadn't expected such a fanciful flight into fantasy, but hey,
> I can roll with it.]
>
>Okay, so we can sue the owner of the road for damage caused by 
>automobile air pollution.
>
>What do you think road owners will do to protect themselves? Maybe
>they'll start requiring that your car be tested for the amount
>of pollution it emits. Cars that pollute above a certain level will
>not be allowed on the road. [Gee, that sounds familiar.]
>
>So now we need to get smog stickers for all the possible roads we
>might drive on. Sure some of the road owners might have some kind
>of reciprocity agreements, but what about that one ornery cuss who
>owns the key roadway in the middle of the state? 

Unlikely that this will happen. Most likely that everyone will settle
on a standardized test.

>I'm sorry but this scheme doesn't sound any more efficacious than
>current state-sponsored emissions testing, and it sounds a lot less
>convenient.

Ah, but it IS better than the state sponsored variety. The inspection
agency will be a profitable enterprise, not a money losing sinecure
for bureaucrats.  Thats only the surface advantate; there are lots of
others. Convenience is likely to become far BETTER, especially if
there are competing agencies to do the testing to standard.

Given that state sponsored ANYTHING requires that people be forced at
gunpoint to cooperate, the question should not be "why should we go
along with privatizing X; it doesn't look so much better than the
government could do", but should rather be "if the private sector can
do X even slightly worse than the government could, what possible
excuse do we have for not privatizing".

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertrians and the environment, info
Date: 29 Jul 1992 16:14:29 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article l7dfo3INNnbo@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM, johnb@corp.sun.com (John Benninghoff) writes:
>Did I say I have a monopoly on absolute truth?
>

Of course. People can't use force against each other (except in certain situations), 
anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong, true? .

>Only a child (or tyrant?) would confuse a political/economic system with a
>philosophy.  :-)
>

Yes, it's obvious you don't have a philosophical system.

>>Oh you don't want a really free market, you want a government that enforces
>>how you think government should work. No use of force, fraud, support
>>for police, courts, and defense and all that. You delude yourself into thinking
>>this is the one truth all must obey.
>

>How do you know what I really want?  

You never really say. You just post drive by replies.

>And I have no delusions thank you.

I guess you are the only one. (BTW, this is an example of a useless reply).

>Unless you are an anarchist your political position also involves force.
>

Yes of course my political position involves force. I don't run away from it.
Force it is not a necessary evil, force is as much a part of life as is
killing to eat. Any system that does not respond to abuse of all types of force,
or rather power, is an unworkable system, as is libertarianism.




Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:30:45 GMT

tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>In article 22795@ncar.ucar.edu, gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>  BTW, you seem to think that since Libertarianism doesn't condone using the
>>  state to force a certain position on issue <X>, that all positions on <X> 
>>  are equally tolerated, and yes, even condoned. Not even close. I do not 
>>  tolerate racists, sexists, any bigot of any stripe, but I do not approve of
>>  using the state to smote these kinds of jerks. I realize that a state that
>>  is given such power will quite likely use it against me or my views.

>If you are afraid of state power why then would you allow the state to
>have monopoly control over force at all? 

It doesn't.  There's a little matter of private gun ownership.
-- 
Chaste makes waste.
From: chan@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Chan Benson)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:50:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Libertrians and the environment, info wanted
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

> >I'm sorry but this scheme doesn't sound any more efficacious than
> >current state-sponsored emissions testing, and it sounds a lot less
> >convenient.
> 
> Ah, but it IS better than the state sponsored variety. The inspection
> agency will be a profitable enterprise, not a money losing sinecure
> for bureaucrats.  Thats only the surface advantate; there are lots of
> others. Convenience is likely to become far BETTER, especially if
> there are competing agencies to do the testing to standard.

Hmmm. I can't speak for other states, but here in Colorado, there *are* 
competing testing facilities. The state says you have to prove your car 
emits less than a certain amount of pollutants, and if you do, they'll 
license your car. So all I have to go on is that your idea is better 
because you *say* it is.

> Given that state sponsored ANYTHING requires that people be forced at
> gunpoint to cooperate, the question should not be "why should we go
> along with privatizing X; it doesn't look so much better than the
> government could do", but should rather be "if the private sector can
> do X even slightly worse than the government could, what possible
> excuse do we have for not privatizing".

No one from the government is forcing anyone at gunpoint to drive here 
in Colorado. I suppose other states might be different. 

I think Libertarians need to decide if their primary interest is
playing ideological games, or effecting real change. You're not terribly
persuasive.

			-- Chan
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 1992 19:11:49 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 711829845@cancun, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>If you are afraid of state power why then would you allow the state to
>>have monopoly control over force at all? 
>
>It doesn't.  There's a little matter of private gun ownership.
>-- 

What does gun ownership have to do anything?  Regardless of the weapon
you cannot use force against another unless it's self defense. You must
be having some Rambo fantasy if you think a gun puts you on equal footing
with the massive powers of the state. And if it does, why have laws against
the use of force at all?
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:04:17 GMT
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 145@utkux1.utk.edu, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>So we can see clearly by your example that anti-discrimanatory laws were not 
>helpful in your case.
>

You are right, we don't need any laws at all. Afterall, people will break them,
so what't the point?


>That is true, but governemnt intervention is useless and wrong.  
>

You're right, we don't need any laws.

>But he DID get away with it.  In SPITE of the law, which meant NOTHING.
>
>-=-=-

You're right, we don't need any laws.
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: How to respond.
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:24:46 GMT
Organization: SSRL, Stanford, CA

In article <YeQ2cP200WDN0LyNw9@andrew.cmu.edu>, js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes:
> 
> How about not having quotes from other messages which are longer than your
> response? I believe that makes some common sense.
> 

Here Here Jon!

	There is so much traffic on a.i these days that keeping up with it
is becoming a full time job! Picking through tons of indented lines to find
the imbedded insults and quips hurts the eyes.

	Heres another thought. Why not stick all your follup info on the
bottom, responding to a summary of someones position rather than disecting each
and every remark?
			rgds,
				tc
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertrians and the environment, info
Date: 22 Jul 1992 17:59:43 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 8646@NOC.Vitalink.COM, rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan) writes:
>In article <l6od01INNa0@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM  

>> As are the courts, police, and defense?
>
>It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent people can fail
>to grasp as simple an economic concept as "public goods".  

I guess we are even. It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent
people can fail to grasp that they are pushing an agenda just as
arbitrary as the very agendas they critique. Just because you've created a
system a computer would love does not mean you have a lock on objective truth.

>That is, things which cannot practically be provided to some people without
>incidentally providing them to others.   

So this is justification for taxation and in general government claiming a
monopoly on force? Quite weak. Perhaps we do not share the same
goals, yet you are forcing me to follow your goals. If you provide
a defense and I benefit as a side effect then tough luck. Your fear of
giving a free ride to others is not justification for enslaving me through taxes. 

>
>I'm a little less hard-core on this issue than many libertarians, 
>though.   I will grant that there may be some merit (at present) to 
>the argument that everyone benefits from an educated society, and
>that government _funding_ of education from tax revenues may be
>justifiable.   But the State has proven to be incompetent at _running_
>the schools.   
>

The question of the government running agencies is orthogonal to the issue
of the government raising taxes and funding functions that are deemed
necessary. You have entered the Great Gray by admitting government may
have a role in funding schooling but not running it. 

I'm also amazed by obviously intelligent people who draw a solid line
in the sand and reject as statist fools anyone on the other side of the line.
It seems smart people could better use their time trying to create system
people on both sides could accept, if not grudgingly. I can easily
see a system where general taxes, yes even the hated income tax, fund
functions like health care, schools, defense, etc., yet does not run
them, and acts as QC group. Your support for government paid schooling
fits into this model nicely.


>
>Finally, can we really do much _worse_ than the current mess?

It depends on how you define "worse." A world where descrimination is tolerated,
where all land is private and can be deforested and abused, where life is run by
lawsuit, where people can starve and not get health care, yes, I see this
as worse.

P.S. Please don't take the easy road and just reply to the above paragraph.


Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit,,,)
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination
Reply-To: pandit@ssd.intel.com
Organization: SSD Intel Corp.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:32:57 GMT

In article 205@utkux1.utk.edu, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.164330.800@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>>But under libertarianism, there would be no one to complain to, and no 
>>mechanism for complaining.  And that's exactly why libertarianism, while 
>>wonderful in theory, would in reality be a nightmare for minorities.  
>
>Sure there would:  the owner/vendor.  If he doesn't want thier business, 
>they can go to another vendor who knows that thier money spends.  If there 
>is not other vendor, they can open thier own store and take advantage of the 
>neglected market.

The answer is not so easy.  If they own nothing and are not permitted to buy anything 
or work for money, exactly where and how would they open their own store?

---
|  Milind S. Pandit                           |  Standard disclaimers apply.  |
|  pandit@iwarp.intel.com                     |-------------------------------|
|  Operating Systems Engineer, iWarp Program  |   Who knows what evil lurks   |
|  Intel Corp., Beaverton, OR                 |     in the hearts of men?     |

From: chan@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Chan Benson)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 16:03:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Libertrians and the environment, info wanted
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: alt.individualism


[I hadn't expected such a fanciful flight into fantasy, but hey,
 I can roll with it.]

Okay, so we can sue the owner of the road for damage caused by 
automobile air pollution.

What do you think road owners will do to protect themselves? Maybe
they'll start requiring that your car be tested for the amount
of pollution it emits. Cars that pollute above a certain level will
not be allowed on the road. [Gee, that sounds familiar.]

So now we need to get smog stickers for all the possible roads we
might drive on. Sure some of the road owners might have some kind
of reciprocity agreements, but what about that one ornery cuss who
owns the key roadway in the middle of the state? 

I'm sorry but this scheme doesn't sound any more efficacious than
current state-sponsored emissions testing, and it sounds a lot less
convenient.

Feel free to offer your own ending to your fairy tale if you don't
find mine plausible.

			-- Chan
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 1992 16:21:27 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 711766687@cancun, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>
>
>>I don't want to go back to living in a society where people can be denied
>>a life.
>
>You live in one right now.
>-- 

This predictable turn of phrase is used quite often by libertarians.

Is your life really that horrible? You all sound so tortured. Life may not be as 
good as it could be, the same as with our government, but I have a real hard 
time believing you are suffering. Perhaps the pain is more spiritual than physical...
a longing for the perfection we hold in our minds.

After a lot of talks with my grandparents about the depression, my
great-grandparents about living in the late 1800s, friends who lived
under overt discrimination, life now seems lush in comparison for the majority of 
people (in the richer nations of course).
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: What is Libertarianism?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 06:43:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.012827.6590@cs.rose-hulman.edu> catapnbf@g310b7.Rose-Hulman.Edu. (Nathan) writes:
}Hello:
}	I was wondering where I could find more information on the beliefs  
}and platform of the Libertarian party?  All snail mail addresses and other  
}references would be welcome.
}
}				Thank you.
}					Nathan

By anonymous ftp from the pub\libernet directory of think.com, by subscribing
to libernet (libernet-request@dartvax.dartmouth.edu), and more.


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.individualism
From: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Subject: On chronic victims
Reply-To: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 04:57:42 GMT


If there's one thing that wearies me above all others, it is people who
seem to feel that they, due to their skin color, sexual orientation, or
whatever, have some sort of monopoly on suffering and virtue, and who think
that since members of their groups have suffered in the past, this gives
them some sort of Divine Right to call up the Mephistophiles of Big
Government to make their enemies play nice.  This reminds me of some
children I've seen with deficient social skills, who scream for Mommy when
the usual playground give-and-take goes against them.

Granted, there are still people who have bad attitudes about members of
some groups.  COPE WITH IT!  I'm sure that it's scary to be in a group of
members of your own particular group, and have a (much smaller) group of
people go by and mutter nasty things about you---but do you realize just
how cowardly that complaint makes you sound?  If having nasty things said
to my face, loudly, qualified me for chronic victim status, I'd have it
long since.

If you're gay, why go doing things in public that call attention to the
fact, considering that in this culture, that is not acceptable behavior?
Custom, as I've pointed out, is much stronger than any law.  There could be
no law forbidding me, for instance, to wear kilts---but I never do, because
it is not the custom in the place where I must live.  If you are unable to
express affection for your MOTSS partner in public, why not grow some
perspective and realize that there are lots of places in this world where
us evil straights/hets/breeders couldn't do anything of the sort with our
MOTOS partners.  Just ask any Gulf War vet, or anybody familiar with
Mediterranean/Latin culture.  
-- 
Technomad.  Portmanteau word from a novel I'm roughing out, about
a nomadic culture in a "cyberpunk" dark future.  I thought it up
before Cyberpunk 2020 ever came out.  On ISCA and Quartz, they
know me as a Flame-god.  cc697@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: andreag@cco.caltech.edu (Andrea Lynne Gallagher)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:34:03 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit,,,) writes:

>>>But under libertarianism, there would be no one to complain to, and no 
>>>mechanism for complaining.  And that's exactly why libertarianism, while 
>>>wonderful in theory, would in reality be a nightmare for minorities.  
>>
>>Sure there would:  the owner/vendor.  If he doesn't want thier business, 
>>they can go to another vendor who knows that thier money spends.  If there 
>>is not other vendor, they can open thier own store and take advantage of the 
>>neglected market.
>
>The answer is not so easy.  If they own nothing and are not permitted 
>to buy anything or work for money, exactly where and how would they 
>open their own store?

But we're talking about "under libertarianism".  There have certainly
been plenty of times when certain people were not permitted to own
property or to work, but they were "not permitted" by the (very non-
libertarian) government.  A libertarian state would have no power to
forbid ownership or wage labor.

So, given that the victims of this discrimination are free to earn
money and open their own store, does the libertarian arguement still
stand?


Andrea L. Gallagher  andreag@tybalt.caltech.edu	  (818)797-8370
_______________________________________________________________
   	 Oh! Empiricism! Is THAT all you have to offer?!
        	    -Rosencrantz (or Gildenstern) 
-- 
Andrea L. Gallagher  andreag@tybalt.caltech.edu	  (818)797-8370
_______________________________________________________________
   	 Oh! Empiricism! Is THAT all you have to offer?!
        	    -Rosencrantz (or Gildenstern)
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 1992 20:06:10 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 127@utkux1.utk.edu, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>>So, you anti-liberty types don't believe that individual people are capable 
>of acting in an enlightened manner, and must be forced to do so by a benign 
>statist government.
>
>I am sorry, but I am not willing to accept that.
->-=-=-

Nope. Neither do you if you propose we need laws, police, courts, and a defense.



Newsgroups: alt.individualism