HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Labelling laws.
Date: 18 Dec 1992 18:21:37 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Dec15.091734.28212@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1gik4tINNhj4@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>}Oh, right.  There's no incremental benefit to establishing partial
>}libertarianism: only if you go 100% should you look to any demonstrable
>}competitive benefit.  Gee, even the Maharishi promises better if only
>}1% start practicing TM.
>
>Non-sequitur.  See the above, where I explained how the State prevents us
>from the liberation of a mere county, much less a country.  Then read it
>very carefully, so as not to lose comprehension again.

What nonsense.  You are demonstrating a tremendous poverty of imagination,
not to mention conveniently forgetting basic ideas of libertarianism.
Start by privatizing the roads.  Show the benefit.  Yes, the state will
prevent you from achieving some libertarian goals: do what you can to show
how you can improve things.

>The part about "free country projects."  This
>has been tried, and the American Empire has stopped it every time.  The
>Minerva project got stopped when the USA induced the King of Tonga to claim
>it; the case is still in international court, as I understand it.  Another
>libertarian activist was organizing an overthrow of the marxists in Suriname,
>made the mistake of telling the CIA about it, and they put a stop to it.
>They'd rather have the commies in power than have a free society in existence
>anywhere on the planet.

I'm not surprised that so-called libertarians were stopped when they
initiated use of force or attempted to.  I pointed out that you need
political support from another nation: something that can be bought.
However, I'm not surprised that so-called libertarians who are stupid
enough to try armed conquest (whatever happened to non-coercion?) are
also too stupid to organize external political support.

>The problem is that the American Empire doesn't want such a venture to make
>it look bad by comparison, and they're willing to engage in coercion to
>stop it, contrary to your fantasies about the "consensual" nature of the
>USA.

Typical. A conspiracy theory to explain obvious failings.  I explained a
simple, politically viable way for establishing a libertarian nation:
persuade (bribe) a small nation to form an enclave or sponsor secession
of a province.  Get the idea?  That way it's consensual.  As well as
supported by at least one recognized external political entity.

It's also typical of you to confuse the consensual social contract with
citizens of the USA with the often coercive behavior of our nation with
respect to other nations.  Intra and extra-organizational relationships
are usually different.

Mike Huben

"The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves,
only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that
there may be something to them [which] we are missing."  Gamel Nasser
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: gold
Reply-To: rcollins@1.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:55:59 GMT

In article <1gleu3INNjua@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
|> Riddle me this, Batman.  If gold is such a wonderful standard, why is it that
|> no nation (not even Switzerland) has gold backing its currency any more?

I won't pretend to know about all countries, but for the US, inflation
is a good revenue source, especially since most citizens don't
understand that the government caused the inflation on which they are
taxed.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,osu.opinion.libertarian,osu.opinion,alt.politics.marrou,cmh.opinion,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Organization: VTT
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 07:33:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec4.223921.24193@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlfidler@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael L Fidler Jr) writes:

>Sleepi^H^H^H^H^H Voting for the Enemy.

>(reprinted with permission from _Claustrophobia_)

>    We are moving toward the end of 1992, the anti-incumbent year.
>How anti-incumbent has this year been? Not very. I remember the last big
>"anti- incumbent" year...1988. Not many incumbents lost that year...
>maybe it was the "ante-incumbent' year because the incumbents spent
>all their ante to get re-elected. Let's examine a sample of our honest
>public servants and see how they fared.
>...
>
>     Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich:
>          He is the proud owner of 22 rubber checks. 

Tilt.  There were no rubber checks or bounced checks.  What people have
been complaining about is that a number of Congresspeople took advantage
an overdraft protection provision that their bank provided them.  True,
it was a better deal than the overdraft protection i had in my Federal
Credit Union account (i had to pay interest -- they did not if their 
checks would be covered by their next incoming paycheck [which by the 
way was guaranteed, the bank did not have to worry about them being
laid off or fired or their employer going Chapter 13].) but it was
not check bouncing.

You may criticise the bank for having such a policy, but there is no
basis, except jealousy) for criticizing the members for taking advantage
of it.  It harmed noone.  The creditors received their money on time.
It's true that the Congressfolk did not have to pay interest on the
covered short term loans, but then again they did not receive any 
interest during the 3 weeks that they had to wait after the end of the
month before receiving their monthly check.  It probably is not a
problem for most of them to have to work 7 weeks before receiving their
first paycheck, and receiving all subsequent ones 3 weeks late, but
how would most of the rest of us feel if our employer treated us that
way?  If our company provided a bank which allowed us to draw on the
paycheck before it belatedly made it to our accounts, wouldn't we feel 
it proper to use that provision.  Maybe i am just a scum, but i would
feel that it was fitting.

>**The House banking scandal was one of many to enrage Americans this year.

It was a non-issue made into something by media hype.

>**Of the 162 check bouncers that ran for re-election only 14 lost their seats.

How many of them were actually check bouncers?  I doubt many if any.
They just used their bank's overdraft protection.  I have been known to
have used my credit union's overdraft protection also.  Big deal!

>                      --Donald Gallick
-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman)
Subject: Re: Followup - Why Marrou Lost
Organization: Photon Research Associates, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:56:45 GMT

The point I am making is that some pro-life voters are willing to ignore
the abortion issue if a pro-abortion candidate is otherwise better than
the pro-life candidate.

It should be noted that practicing Catholics faced much more of a threat
under George Bush, whose surgeon general sought to eliminate "loopholes"
in drinking-age laws which allowed minors to drink FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES,
than under a pro-abortion President who only threatened Catholic doctrine
rather than actual religious practice itself.  Where was Marrou and other
Libertarians when Antonia Novello came out in favor of eliminating state
"loopholes"?

Catholic pro-lifers are different from Protestant pro-lifers.  They have
greater tolerances of hypnotism, fantasy role-playing games, etc.  Had
Marrou utilized the drinking age issue, making the Catholic decision
between Marrou and Clinton, and then emphasized his opposition to abortion
funding and right to peaceful protest, along with his school-choice belief
and church tax exemption, he could have done considerably better than his
paltry total.

Remember, Nancy Lord has a history of abortion-rights activism.  He should
have sent Nancy to court the abortion-choice Republicans and concentrated
on the conservative dissatisfaction with Bush.  That's what vice-presidential
candidates are for in campaigns.

The next Libertarian team, realizing that the 1996 Republican won't make the
same sellouts as George Bush did, should have a #1 man/woman who focuses
on the social issue - my preference is Russell Means - and a #2 person who
can attract conservatives through economic dogma - pick any economist.

Joe Naiman

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Labor Standard
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 04:34:55 GMT

bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>at15+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew Lewis Tepper) writes:

>>Fix the currency at 1 unit=1 hour of unskilled labor. To keep the system
>>honest, the way to produce currency is to have an actual person do 1
>>hour of labor (either needed labor or unneeded), and then to give him a
>>newly minted currency unit. This isn't as crazy as it sounds:

>	Interesting idea, however it depends on what you count as an hour
>of unskilled labor.  A classic example is ditch digging.  If we assume a
>guy with a shovel can move 180 cu. ft. of dirt / hr; does a guy with a
>tractor (say 5400 cu. ft of dirt / hr) get 30 units pay?

It is hardly "interesting" and it really is as crazy as it sounds.

I've just spent 1 hour doing unskilled labor reading messages, send me
1 unit.  Oh wait, let me grab a shovel and dig a ditch I'm going to
dig it 5 feet deep I could use the overtime.

You do realize that a hole in the ground isn't explicitly worth anything
right ?  Can I get 1/2 a unit if I find a hole that somebody else dug
but nobody remembered where it was ?

Gawwwwwwwd.

tom
>
From: ebb7683@venus.tamu.edu (BLACKMAN, EDWARD B)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Response to the "How you voted" question
Date: 11 Dec 1992 15:45 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec11.141213.9872@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Harry.Johnson@launchpad.unc.edu (Harry Johnson) writes...
> 
>I recently posted a question asking the readers of this group to write me
>and tell me how they voted in the election.  Thanks to those of you who
>responded; I received a total of 35 responses, summarized below:

[deleted]

>[...] but I found it interesting that fewer than half
>of the Libertarians voted straight ticket within this sample.  This helps
>to explain why Marrou got such a small total; even those who are
>proclaimed Libertarians (as those who answered my post were) didn't vote
>for him, believing he had no chance of winning (which was cited several
>times in the responses I received).
> 
>Any further comments?

I voted for Bush instead of Marrou not because I didn't think that Marrou
had a chance of winning (I voted for several Libertarians on the state level
that had less of a chance of winning than Marrou), but because I saw Clinton
as a significantly greater evil than Bush, and because I thought that the
election was going to be closer than it was in Texas.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| Ed Blackman                        |    Another PROUD user of OS/2!!!     | 
| Internet: EBB7683@venus.tamu.edu   |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=|
| Fido    : 1:117/331.10             | For you anti-RTKBA people:  The era  |
|=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= of the American Police State is      |
| approaching - brace yourselves.  In our zealotry to conduct the "war on   |
| drugs" and to "make society safe from gun violence" we are dooming the    |
| Bill of Rights.                                                           |
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=( Boycott Microsoft )=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: Chris Struble <mece3d@uh.jetson.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:04:58 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.7.104.212
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
X-XXMessage-ID: <A7537FD4DB0768D4@mac.me.uh.edu>
X-XXDate: Tue, 15 Dec 92 12:28:04 GMT

In article <1gl2i5INN7m7@menudo.uh.edu> Chris Struble,
mece3d@uh.jetson.edu writes:

>the world is more or less fixed, and cannot be Uinflatedj as easily as
                                                                         
             ^^^^^^^^^

Oops, thatUs supposed to be the word INFLATED in double quotes. Maybe
single quotes will work better, letUs try UinflatedU....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christian Struble    | Department of Mechanical Engineering         |
| MECE3D@UH.JETSON.EDU | University of Houston, Houston 77204-4792    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|    The true civilization is where every man gives to every other    |
|    every right that he claims for himself  --  Robert Ingersoll     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Views? :
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:28:50 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <1992Dec9.221200.20158@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
|> 
|> also, if your statement #2 is true, why did gold go up in value by
|> an order of magnitude after the gold standard was *removed*?
|> 

You are assuming the value of gold went up when it is much more likely that
the value of the pieces of paper actually dropped once they were no longer
tied to anything of real value.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@cs.uofs.edu         |  This space would be left intentionally blank
                              |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Gold v. Oil: Backed Currency
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:09:57 GMT

In article <JBV=qg+@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
[old text deleted]
>
>>>Let's go through this one more time. As it is now, if the government wants
>>>more money to spend (and who doesn't?) they can just print more. To use a
>>>simple example, if the government decided to double the money supply,
>>>they'd have a huge chunk of money to spend... but anyone who was holding
>>>cash will discover that it now buys half of what it used to. Unfair? Yes,
>>>but perfectly legal... with nothing backing our currency.
>>
>>If the government prints more money they didn't "effectively" double the
>>money supply. 
>
>I'd say that if someone actually does something, it's pretty effective,
>isn't it? Not that it has the slightest bit of relevance to the discussion...
>
>
>
>>Money is a commodity traded on its own, just like wheat or steel, it is
>>however shares in a country not of a hard good or product.  It is
>>hoarded or spent depending upon whether people speculate the price of
>>money will go up or down.  If you think Yen is moving up you'll want to
>>trade in your dollars and hold onto Yen, trading back for more dollars
>>than the Yen cost you when you think Yen peaked.
>
>Unfortunately, the government insists that I pay my taxes in dollars, and
>the storekeeper on the corner won't accept a fistful of yen.
>
>>U.S. dollars are a form of U.S. stock certificates, they are worth what
>>the buyer and seller agree upon and not a penny more or less.
>
>Aside from being worth "what the buyer and seller agree upon and not a
>penny more or less" (which is true of ANYTHING), the analogy between
>dollars and stock certificates is completely false. If a private corporation
>needs capital, it can go public, print up one billion shares, declare
>each share to be worth one billionth of the company, and sell them. But
>if it later decides it needs *more* capital, it *can't* print up another
>billion, and declare that each share is now worth only one two billionth
>of the company. Once it sets a value (in percentage of the company) of
>its shares, that's it. The government, on the other hand, has absolutely
>no qualms whatsoever about printing up more money.
>
>-- 
>__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked

	I don't mean to knit pick, but have you ever heard of a stock
split?  You can split stock two ways:
1)  Give x shares for each share owned to each shareholder.
2)  Sell x shares on the open market.

	So in otherwords a company can do exactly that (print more shares
and decrease their value); with SEC permission of course.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: What to do with all the leftovers
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 22:25:57 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <6082@sumax.seattleu.edu> mjsimko@sumax.seattleu.edu (Matthew Simko) writes:
>
> [What do we do with all the government employees?]
>

Tres simple. Government employees have an attrition rate of over 10% / year.
We don't need to fire anyone... just stop hiring new people, and the 
bureaucracy will dissolve within a decade.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1992Dec12.044058.16557@samba.oit.unc.edu>
	<1992Dec12.173017.21527@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Dec13.022756.3194@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:56:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.022756.3194@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:


	   Well on that you and I agree completly.  I think the gold standard
   is really not worth much.  It was useful in ancient times, because gold
   was relativly rare and highly prized.  In modern times, who really needs
   gold for anything.  The best thing we could do is sell of all that
   worthless garbage in Fort Knox.
	   Givin all this though can you think of a good commidity for the
   modern world?



How about bancors? (just kidding)
--


Matt Landrum                    | mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "There's a fine line between 
Starkville, MS  39759           |  stupid and clever" -- Spinal Tap
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The Larger Picture (was Re: Gold Standard? No!)
Date: 15 Dec 1992 15:57:46 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36
Keywords: Gold, zealot, oil

In article <BzA4Fr.20r@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <liqedgINNra@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>>
>>The Gold Standard is to the Libertarian party what abortion is to the
>>republicans; an albatross with no understandable defense.
>
>...In conclusion, the LP should drop the gold standard. If some statement is
>required in this area, it should be one of favoring competing currencies.
>Competition, not regulation, is the solution to this problem.

Hear, hear.  At last something intelligent.

One minor point: we already have competing currencies.  Every commodity that
is traded on the exchanges is a de-facto currency, including national
currencies.  With rare exceptions, these all "float".

When I lived in Ecuador, every bank provided currency exchange for a small
fee.  Due to rapid inflation, most kept their money either as foreign
cash or as acounts in foreign currencies.  That we don't do that in the
US is a tribute to the stability of our currency compared to those of the
rest of the world.

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".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 06:27:21 GMT

jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>
>If currency is a commodity, then the US government is the producer of that
>commodity (since the US government can always produce more by increasing the
>money supply -- in effect, printing more).
>
>Methinks your analogy is a bit inaccurate.

James: It is considered "beneficial" to read a book, try one on economics.

This isn't something we get to decide by popular opinion.

Money is a commodity, it is traded, countries buy and sell it, investors
speculate on it.  You don't have to like it but facts are facts.

If more money is printed the value of each dollar goes down relative to
everything else.

tom

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael)
Subject: Ice cream cone economics (was Re: Ayn Rand(What yo gonna do?))
Organization: FXD/Telerate, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:24:31 GMT

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) intelligently asks:
>>>[Apropos the trade imbalance....]
>>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>>Let's say you buy an ice cream cone from me for a dollar.  Then I buy a
>>>fraction of your factory for that dollar.  Iterate.  After a while, you
>>>will have consumed alot of ice cream cones and I will own the factory.
>>>
>>	Ok, and what can you do with this American factory?

>The question is what do you no longer do with this factory that you used to
>own: you no longer make money.  You no longer can buy ice cream cones.  You
>have squandered your capital.

Now wait just a cotton-picking second. Let's get this straight here. I *used*
to be able to buy ice cream cones because the factory was profitable, correct? 
Suppose the factory is worth one million dollars and has a dollar an hour
positive cash flow. So every hour I buy one ice cream cone, and you use the
dollar to buy a share in my factory. After a million hours, I've consumed a
million ice cream cones, you own the factory, and you've given me a million
dollars, the fair-market value of that factory.  My net worth: one million
dollars worth of cash.  Your net worth: one million dollars worth of factory
stock.

>As a capitalist, you are a failure, you are
>out on the dungheap, you have nothing more than whatever your labor is worth.

Excuse me, oh worthy and exhalted one, but can't I just build another factory
with the million you gave me, and thereby continue to buy more ice cream
cones until the cows come home? 

If I'm only buying ice cream with my *income*, I've lost nothing at all when
you buy my factory. I still have assets of equivalent value.

>If you don't understand this, you must be a disciple of Da Free John.
>Can I make it any plainer?

>Mike Huben

Glen Raphael
raphael@fx.com