HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Date: 16 Dec 1992 02:00:18 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg8.corp.sun.com

> As someone who's played the commodity markets for years, I can tell you
> that there's a very, very important difference between dollars as a
> commodity and gold or bellies as a commodity.

As someone who's played the commodity markets for years you should know
that the Fed does not increase the money supply by printing money,
refer to the previous post.

Also, when someone starts pulling up their crudentials you know they
are losing ground.

> Inflation of 5% / year is considered _good_. Think about it! 

If the gold standard were a cure for inflation this statement might
have merit, refer to the previous post.

> Are you the same guy I criticized a couple of days ago for making sweeping,
> all-encompassing statements like this one with absolutely no evidence to
> back them up? Until this discussion started on alt.politics.libertarian, I
> didn't even _know_ that the gold standard was in the Constitution, and I
> have always been very much in favor of the gold standard.

Isn't the net great. I've learned a lot of great things here too. Maybe you
should read the constitution sometime. It will take you 30 mins. max.

Sorry to humiliate you in public.

-Kris
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Overwhelming responses...
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 12:11:00 GMT

In article <1gb2jpINNcqi@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}I also notice almost a conspiracy among libertarians not to criticize each
}other even when your counterarguments to my posts placed next to each other
}would be mutually incompatible.  I don't object to this: I'm just surprised
}to see that much agreement within a group founded upon rejection.  :-)

I merely presume that my fellow libertarians are able to draw the conclusion
that I disagree with them on their own.  I presume that they can and should
do their own thinking.  Roger seems bright enough to do this.

}For example, when I criticize Spooner's "No Treason", people like Roger
}Collins say "I agree that many of Spooner's arguments were 'rhetorical tricks,'
}or legal mumbo jumbo." but Tim Starr responds "Your descriptive claim is
}simply false.  Discredited?  Support this.  By whom?  When?  Where?  Which
}argument?"
}
}I have to say I much prefer Roger Collins' responses.  They're much more
}rational and much harder to argue against than most other posters here.
}Even when he disagrees with me.  :-)

Oh, yes, of course.  Quite clearly requesting evidentiary support for
claims made out of context is less rational than conceding the false premises
of one's opponent.  Thank you for edifying me on the niceties of logic.

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." - Voltaire
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Labelling laws.
Date: 11 Dec 1992 21:10:48 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Dec11.042750.2493@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1g5ollINN95l@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>}libertarians, like creationists,
>}have nothing but old, discredited arguments made more than a hundred years
>}ago by cranks and laughed at even then.
>
>Right.  6 libertarian Nobel economists in the past 18 years, but Huben, in
>his omniscience, can wipe out their existence with the stroke of a key.

Somehow I doubt that any of those six won their prizes for repeating
Spooner's philosophical arguments which you are still repeating.

Unless you can show that their prize-winning researches could not have
occurred without their understanding of libertarianism, your argument is
merely argument by authority.  As such it is no more valid than Linus
Pauling's endorsement of vitamin C for preventing colds and Shockley's
racist viewpoint.  I'll bet they haven't donated to the Nobel Prizewinners'
sperm bank because they wouldn't be paid for their semen.  :-)

>"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
>oneself and others." - Voltaire

You should be ashamed to use such a .signature after such a pathetic
argument.  As a matter of fact, most of what you've written this week
in response to me is similarly fallacious.

Mike Huben

Anyone who in discussion relies upon authority uses, not his understanding,
but his memory.  - Leonardo Da Vinci  "Notebooks" c. 1500
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: avr@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (adam.v.reed)
Subject: Re: N-C abortion
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:44:15 GMT
Summary: Definition of "man qua man"

In article <1992Dec10.215637.432@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> i think it would be interesting to explore your definition of "person"
> and what it entails...

OK. My own approach to liberty is derived from that of Ayn Rand.
As I understand her derivation of the concept of rights, Rand
uses "man", or more precisely "man qua man", as a technical term
meaning an organism whose life in its natural environment is
conditional on actions chosen by its mind. This concept is
entirely orthogonal to the biological definition of "man" as
an organism of the species Homo Sapiens. As Rand herself put it,
the category "man qua man" would include a hypothetical
"intelligent spider from Mars", but cannot include a fetus or an
idiot. Thus a fetus or an idiot cannot have rights, in the sense
in which Rand derives that concept.

The above seems unexpectedly difficult to grasp for people who
come to Libertarianism from cultures that base their concept of
rights on membership in a particular biological species, or on
considerations of supernatural rather than natural law,
particularly if they define the "soul", the possession of which
entitles one to ethical consideration, as something independent
of "mind". I don't know how this fits, but Rand grew up as a
Jew, and in Judaism an infant that dies before the age of 30
days after birth (roughly when a human first begins to act on
his or her own, rather than only in response to external and
vegetative stimuli) is not mourned like a person.

					Adam_V_Reed@ATT.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:41:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.012812.21196@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen) writes:
}In article <BzD8Fy.DoJ@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
}>|> >What's wrong with exploitation (all it means it to benefit from), and how
}>|> >were either sweatshop workers or the rail workers oppressed
}
}
}Philosophically speaking, I guess an argument would be that if a person
}voluntairily agrees to be taken advantage of because he does not know 
}any better, that is his problem.

Or they could know better, and just make perverse-seeming choices.

However in the specific case of rail 
}workers, they were making near  subsitence wages in very poor working 
}conditions while the rail owners were making huge profits.  I'm sure 
}the rail owners could have made conditions a little better at higher
}wages and still make a profit. 

Or their subsidies could have been terminated, and they could have had to
treat their labor well in order to stay in business.

}There IS a third choice besides the two extremes stated.  The manufacturers
}could have made working conditions a little better and it would still 
}be profitable enough to run the business.  This seems the more equitable 
}solution.  Remmember these employers got extremely rich during the 19th 
}century, so it wasn't the case of the workers suffering because the 
}product was not selling.  

Henry Hill, owner of the Great Northern, was the most successful, and without
subsidy.  As a matter of fact, the other railroads had great trouble making
money off their land grants because they couldn't get people to move so far
out of developed areas.  Hill helped people develop close to already-
developed areas, then extended his rail lines a little further.  His help
included low-cost loans.  This marginal strategy worked great so far as I
know.

}Now, I know the standard response is to say that the government shouldn't
}prohibit two parties from voluntairily signing a mutaul contract.  However,
}I also dispute how voluntary the workers' acquiesence to the terms were.
}If the alternative to not working was death by starvation, I don't think 
}that the workers really have a choice.

I think you'll have a very hard time proving that people who moved all the
way from China to work on the railroads had no other choices.


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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 04:11:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.205810.5848@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

>	I think this is topic worth discussing.  Why are so many
>libertarians opposed to feminism?  

A libertarian generally denotes someone who agrees with at least a
goodly number of a set of principles.

Now what does feminism stand for?  Does it stand for:

federally subsidized cheap abortions
federal affirmative action based on gender 
pornography banning
prostitution banning
guilty-until-proven-innocent sexual harassment laws
banning of ``sexist'' speech
and, on an attitudinal level, the making use of any type of injustice,
	imagined or real, to promote similar authoritarian measures
?

My question is:

What does feminism have to teach libertarians?  Some vague notions of
``equality''?  What is ``equality''; does it mean the use of
government to enforce some level of equalness?  Sounds very
authoritarian-socialist to me.

On the other hand, if feminists are simply trying to let everybody
have an equal playing field where everybody's rights are protected,
then why do they call themselves FEMINists?  Why not support equal
rights for everybody; why not just be an INDIVIDUAList or
EVERYBODYist?  Why be so fickle and only support the female cause?
What type of integrity is that, where one waxes eloquent about
fairness -- but only specificalaly for females?  After all, we'd like
everybody to have a fair shake, but some groups deserve to have a
fairer shake than others, right?

If that's what feminism is, then call me a proud very-anti-feminist
libertarian.

Han-Young Huang
hhuang@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Gold v. Oil: Backed Currency
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 09:34:05 GMT

positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:

>Now, suppose South Africa digs up a large supply of gold. That's fine.
>If they wanted to, they could redeem every ounce they dug up for $35.00.

Jonathan:  Forgive me for just butting in (I didn't see this thread before)
but I believe traditional economics dictates the following:

Now, suppose South Africa digs up a large supply of gold.  (It is fine)
but the price would drop since supply has increased and demand remains
constant.

The only way they could keep the price at $35 would be to leak the supply
of new gold into the system gradually.  That is the way diamonds are
sold and the reason that cartels try to maintain oil supply levels.

As far as a gold standard goes it seems entirely outdated when "notes"
can be backed by a broader economic worth.  It would be like a bank
giving you a loan if you had stored a large quantity of aluminum in
your basement but wouldn't if you had a dozen houses to your name but
none of that "official" currency.

tom

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:52:43 GMT

|> >What's wrong with exploitation (all it means it to benefit from), and how
|> >were either sweatshop workers or the rail workers oppressed?

In article <BzD0IE.1Gz@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
|> They suffered a low standard of living, a high rate of ill-health,
|> and the knowledge that they had little if any chance of moving out
|> of their situation.  Children who worked 12 hour shifts down coal
|> mines ended up with black lung.  Children who didn't get paid
|> enough to eat well suffered from rickets.  Rail workers were economic
|> slaves, with conditions not far off from those of South African miners
|> today.  If someone suffered a work-related injury, there was little
|> if any recompense, and little if any chance of future employment.
|> How nice.

If the workers were desperate enough to take such jobs, how desperate
would they be if those jobs were not available?

I presume you think it would have been nicer to ban such businesses so
that the workers would have *no* work at all, so they could die in a
dignified manner, say, starvation at a young age, as in Somalia.
From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Seat Belt Laws
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:33:07 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: icat.larc.nasa.gov

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>What's really happening here is federal blackmail.  States are scheduled
>to lose some amount of money in federal highway funds if they have not
>succeeded in forcing a mandatory selt-belt law on their citizens by some
>year (1994?)  Your safety is the last thing on your state legislators'
>little minds.

Although I TOTALLY agree with you that federal blackmail is occurring (just
like the 55 mph scandal), I believe it is possible to view the issue of
mandatory seatbelt wearing in a slightly different way.

As a pilot, I am required to wear lap & shoulder belts during critical
flight phases (e.g., takeoff and landing).  The rationale is that if I do
not wear them, relatively common atmospheric conditions may cause me to
become dislodged from my seat and lose control of the aircraft.  Hurtling
chunks of uncontrolled aircraft hurt not just myself, but threaten those
on the ground (e.g., at a nearby shopping mall).  Those shoppers have a
right to protect themselves from others' negligence (very libertarian)
but they can't do this if they're dead.  So they pass a proactive law that
makes it much more unlikely that their relatives will need to use the
court system to recover damages.

You may think that automobiles are totally different.  They're not.  Every
time someone swerves to avoid a puppy on the road, they're placing every
other motorist in the vicinity in jeopardy, and I'd prefer that my wife
not have to use the court system after I'm dead to recover damages from the
driver who chose not to wear seatbelts.  I believe that not wearing seatbelts
is, in itself, negligent behavior, and I support mandatory seatbelt laws
(that's my right! if others disagree, fine... the laws won't get passed).

Now, as for the federal blackmail stuff.  I think it's a sneaky, slimy,
underhanded way of doing business and I oppose it even when they're pushing
something I want.  I hate precedent being set, since I know they'll do the
same damn thing on laws I DON'T want.  The people of the several states
should have the right to determine the laws they want to live by, where
the constitution *clearly* does not give the federal government any
authority.  Witholding federal road money (which came from taxes paid by
citizens of that state, too) is an unconstitutional attempt by the federal
government to extend its power over the states.  Period.  It must be fought
regardless of the (current) "cause."

-- 
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681
Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-7793,   Email: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov
PGP 2.0 Public Key now available -- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 06:08:45 GMT

: >}	I think this is topic worth discussing.  Why are so many
: >}libertarians opposed to feminism?  
: >
: >I wouldn't say that it's that we're opposed to feminism per se, but that
: >we don't do enough to emphasize the individualism in feminism, and spend
: >all our time attacking the statism in it.
: 
: 	But why not emphazide the individualism.  In other words, why is
: that magazines like liberty do tend to target feminism; and take the
: anti-feminist position on zillions of issues.
:
Possibly because feminist see govt. intervention, and intrusion in
peoples lives as a method of bringing about "fairness and equality".
The feminists beleive in using govt. to mold society into the form
they beleive is proper. This sounds very socialist to me. 

Felix Gorney


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: arguments about arguments 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:38:52 +0000

In article <Bz4Msw.G3F.1@cs.cmu.edu> asp+@cs.cmu.edu writes:

>However, since you're a big fan of logical impossibility, I'd be interested in
>how you handle the following argument:
>
>   "This sentence is false, and I am not the Pope."
>
>Notice that it is logically impossible for this sentence to be true,

Wrong!  It is logically possible for that sentence to be true, since you
used the 'and' conjunction.  That means that if either part of the
sentence if false, the whole sentence is false.  Therefore, if you *are*
the Pope, the second part is false, therefore the sentence as a whole is
false, and the first part is true.

>and there
>is certainly no evidence for it (indeed, it's not clear what _would_ be
>evidence for it).  I'll leave it to you to work out the logical consequences
>of the sentence being false.

There may be no evidence for you being the Pope, but that has nothing to
do with the *logical* correctness of the statement.  You have given no
evidence connected with that statement to show that you are *not* the
Pope.

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jfmcbray@sacam.OREN.ORTN.EDU (Jason F McBrayer)
Subject: Re: Labor Standard
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:42:35 GMT


Ken Arrondee sez:
	The problem with the currency is that it's just like having the
	government print paper.

With regard to the labor standard, in which a currency unit=1 hr of
unskilled labour.  I haven't worked out how everything would work with
this system, but it's fairly clear that inflation is impossible, or at
least, unrestrained inflation.  Look at it this way...inflation has to do
with the relationship between the amount of currency floating around and
the amount of goods floating around.  Labour differs from other
commodities in that goods are produced by labour.  Therefore, MOST of the
time, the amount of goods should increase at the same pace as the amount
of currency.
	The obvious point of difficulty is with service jobs; they
produce no goods.  I don't think that would allow inflation...the time
spent in service jobs associated with production (ie, supervisors, etc)
would have to be included in the price of the goods produced.  Perhaps
there would be temporary price instabilities that would level out
eventually.  Remember that supply and demand's role is reduced.  Still, I
think the points where we need to focus in this thought experiment are
service jobs and the definition of unskilled labour.  IMHO these are the
points where this model is weakest.

-----------------------------------------------
Jason F. McBrayer
jfmcbray@sacam.oren.ortn.edu


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:42:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.072906.14113@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@godel.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.051901.9908@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>to summarize: if you define oil as $20 a barrel, and $20 buys X amount
>>of goods, then if i have oil and i can get 2X amount of goods somewhere
>>for my barrel of oil, then your dollar is only *worth* 50 cents, regardless
>>of what you say it is worth.
>
>Not really.  You can trade the $20 in for oil and then use the oil to get 2X
>worth of goods, so the $20 _really_ buys 2X, not X, and your dollar is still
>worth a dollar.

as i said in the article from which you clipped that (right under the paragraph
you clipped too (??)) , refer to a different
article where i explain my point in much greater depth.

again, it's worth a dollar, but who cares? it doesn't *buy* what a dollar
used to buy. without intentional revaluation, people will be using dollar
bills to clean up household spills in 50 years at the rate we are going.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: carl@class.gsfc.nasa.gov (Carl F. Hostetter)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: NASA/GSFC
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:36:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.205810.5848@samba.oit.unc.edu>,
bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Dec16.195702.6333@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
> >In article <724178044snz@keris.demon.co.uk> chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) writes:
> >>
> >>In article <1992Dec8.151436.9552@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
> >>           starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes:
> >>
> >>>Hope we win you over.  Damn few female libertarians.  Pity.
> >>
> >>Why?  No, I don't mean "Why is it a pity?" - why are there so few female
> >>libertarians?  Is there something about the policies that puts them off?
> >>Is there something in the attitudes of prominent libertarians which
> >>seems to exclude women?
> >
> >I can't speak for women in general, of course (and it's hard to catch
> >up with all the women who aren't libertarians and ask them why they
> >aren't).
> >>
> >I don't know about prominent libertarians, but in _Reason_ and _Liberty_
> >(the two libertarian publications I follow), I've seen altogether too
> >much of the "asshole conservative humor" aren't-feminists-ridiculous
> >sort of articles, and no countervaling stuff. I don't feel entirely
> >welcome as a result.
> >
> >I don't agree with a good bit of feminism, but I've also gotten a great
> >deal of value from feminism, and a lot of it has to do with liberty and
> >a sense of my own value. I don't see any recognition of the more valuable
> >parts of feminism in libertarianism, and I do see a lot of mockery.
> >
> >Nancy Lebovitz
> >nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu
> >
> 
> 	I think this is topic worth discussing.  Why are so many
> libertarians opposed to feminism?  
> 
> -JMB

Because the mainstream organized feminist groups want The Government
to enforce their agenda.