HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: black herring on econ
Reply-To: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:35:53 GMT

I'd like to just throw a black herring into the age-old econ debate between
"right" "libertarians" and "left" "anarchists"...

"Libertarians" think that Property = Liberty (Give me Property or give me
Death!-)  Back in my "liberal" days I thought economic freedom meant having
more than one fulltimepermanentjobwithbenefits offer to choose from. Now I'm
hip to the fact that "economic necessity" is the string the archons pull us
by.  So why aren't we using everything in our technological bag of tricks in a
concerted battle against economic necessity?  To me this means attempting to
create (in market terms) a permanent glut of necessity goods like food and
housing.  Instead it is used to create a glut of labor, and of course most of
us react to this situation precisely the way the archons want us to.  Another
trick they use is that of turning luxuries into necessities.  I live in Detroit
(where effective public transportation is effectively nonexistent) and work
at an auto plant (through a temp agency of course) for $7.50/hr.  I'd have to
say the automobile (IMHO the least appropriate technology outside the military)
creates for most of us more economic burdens than economic opportunities.
The capitalist assertion that the industrial "revolution" raised the general
standard of living should be called into SERIOUS question.  Even the Amerikan
Government is hip to the fact that the non-farm poverty level is more $ than
the farm one.

So anyone with me on this little project?  Don't underguesstimate what we're
up against.  The Bible says that economic necessity is God's way of punishing
us for Original Sin.

BTW I'm not a utopian...I'd settle for a world in which nice guys finish
second last.


Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: null juries
From: tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 16:33:57 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
> Well, there is no *law* about it, but by definition you can't be
> convicted if the jury acquits you.  The jury is carefully instructed
> to not consider whether they think the law is good, but only whether
> the law was violated.  But sometimes the jury concludes that the law
> is wrong, or more often, that it shouldn't be applied in this
> particular case, and acquits when they "shouldn't".
> 
> The most common example is the traditional "Unwritten Law" that a man
> may kill his wife or her lover if he catches them in the act of
> adultery.  Such killing has always been illegal, but it has only been
> in the last couple of decades that convictions could be obtained.

Unfortunately, since the judge can throw out most any jury verdict
anyway, that becomes moot.  I was hoping there was some obscure law...
Thanks for the clarification.

--                    
INTERNET:  tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!tumidity
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Yet more on PPL systems
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1992Sep29.102922.10916@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<1992Sep29.212624.3679@shearson.com>
	<1992Sep30.092616.7038@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<1992Oct1.170737.14133@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:00:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.170737.14133@athena.mit.edu> danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
   Much of today's poor are produced by the crippling effects the
   welfare state has on the economy.  In an anarcho-capitalist
   society, there would be far less poor.

This is an interesting assertion, but one I'd like to see some
tangible evidence for.  Do you have any examples?  As far as I can
tell, Western culture since the Renaissance has been getting far less
anarcho-captialist, and the poor are getting considerably less
wretched.  Needless to say, the correlation might not be causal, but
statist interventions in modern times seem to reduce inequality, not
increase it.

   Also, you seem to be under the illusion that homeless beggars enjoy
   peace and security under our benevolent government run police and
   court system.

And yet, I'd still likely get convicted if I were caught gratuitously
murdering a beggar.  It wasn't so long ago that one would not be.  As
far as I can tell, the cruelty and violence of the urban underclass
ghetto is pretty representative of Western cities before about 100
years ago.  Certainly it has been only in modern times that one would
consider going out on the streets of a city after dark without an
armed guard.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Rebuttal of Brief Comments on ``The Anarchy Paradox''
Date: 7 Oct 1992 03:21:44 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Oct5.220016.5443@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>-- McCormick, who, out to make a buck, built a reaping device that
>raised the productivity of farmers by an order of magnitude and began
>a revolution that today means no one starves to death in the US, not
>even the homeless, or...

Or the IRI (International Rice Institute), funded by tax dollars of several
nations, which has been directly responsible for developing new strains of
rice which have more than tripled rice production?

Or the numerous tax-funded Land Grant agricultural colleges which have been
responsible for most of the US agricultural advances since McCormick?
Such as the tripling of corn yields in my lifetime?

The researchers of these institutions worked for a salary, not to build
corporate empires.  Greed was not a significant factor, and is not needed
in the excessive amounts proponents of capitalism claim.

Mike Huben

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
						George Santayana

"Those who misremember the past are pleased to repeat it as `proof'."
						Mike Huybensz
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: freedom
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:37:35 GMT

glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
   Is it the animal that learns how to compete, or the one
   who learns how to cooperate that will survive, or even succeed?

It is the one which learns to do both, and knows when each is most
profitable to itself.

But if you want to invoke biology, you should at least read "The
Selfish Gene" first.

Dale
From: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Reply-To: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:53:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.163058.6758@athena.mit.edu>, danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:

>in an anarchical society, I could buy protection services and have direct control
>over my life.  

Please read Machiavelli's chapter on hiring of mercenaries.
If I understand him correctly and he's right, your mercenary or
bodyguard would have direct control over your life.

Rightist libertarians claim that force (public sector) prevails over finance
(private sector) when arguing for abolition or obsolescence of the public
sector.  Apparently once you "privatize" the hired gun the de-facto power
goes to the party paying the bills.

I believe that in the American status-quo the Wall Street Establishment
basically calls the shots and the Washington Establishment basically
rubber stamps.  The question of whether we are protected from each other
("governed") by the public sector or the private sector is about as meaningful
as the question of whether we are governed by Democrats or Republicans.
Screw both sectors!

>	
>	And please stop whining about the poor.  The poor in America are most
>likely to be victims of both crime and police abuse.  Government provided law and
>order fails more for the poor than for anyone else.  And do not pretend that the
>poor could not afford protection.  They could form volunteer patrol groups for
>free at the worse.  More likely, unionized police will be far cheaper than
>overpaid cops today.  Productivity increases will reduce costs of protection and
>the fact that there are no taxes will give most people the means to buy these
>services.  The helpless will be protected by family and friend networks and if
>all else fails by charity as charities have always existed to help the worst off.

This whole rent-a-cop thread is getting to be privatization for the sake of
privatization.  It doesn't address the question of how do you deal with (or
circumvent?) human nature, or the fact(?) that life in the natural(?) state
is nasty, brutish & short.  I don't have the answer either.


Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Organization: Lever Industries
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:47:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.144535.18903@athena.mit.edu> danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
>	But can you refuse to pay taxes when you don't like the job they are
>doing?  One can cancel a security company contract if they fail to perform their
>job properly.  
>	There will be checks and balance through the free market.  Consumer
>Reports and other consumer watch groups, the media, and word of mouth would tell 
>people which security companies are the most efficient and least corrupt.  People
>would stop subsribing to ones that were bad.  There is, of course, some room for
>corruption but with any problem with anarchy, one must compare it to the present

If a private security company was being hired by greedy landlord to burn down
his building to collect insurance I wouldn't think that the market would be as
a direct an action as I would prefer. If a neighbors' house was burned down
I wouldn't consider it a private affair between the landlord and them either.
Out of basic solidarity and because I could be next I wouldn't allow that to
stand.
There are lots of other means of meadiating society other than the market. I
wouldn't mind being in a society with market feedback, but I will be part of
a for profit society only if coerced. I don't know what to say about those
who want to live in such a society other than that they should live apart and
not leach on those who want to cooperate. There will always be people who
want to gamble or exploit others, they have to be kept apart from the
productive members of society.
-- 
--
     Edward Elhauge       You will eat (you will eat), bye & bye (bye & bye)
    Lever Industries      In that glorious land above the sky (way up high)
      San Francisco       Work & pray (work & pray), live on hay, (live on hay)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: freedom
Reply-To: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 23:19:24 GMT

Material prosperity to our citizens?  A few weeks ago our local
newspaper (Rochester, NY) reported the results of a nationwide
study that showed Rochester (about 65th in population) was 13th
in the proportion of children living in poverty--40 per cent.

40 per cent of the children in this county are living in poverty!

When the newspapers brought this to the attention of our county
executive shrugged it off, and responded that it wasn't his
responsibility to do anything about it--the heartless bastard.

Material prosperity for whom?  At what cost?

Erik Timmerman
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<19vejeINNos5@uwm.edu> <1992Sep28.021840.12988@shearson.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:34:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.021840.12988@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
   Bill Gates didn't get to be a billionare by beating up 10 year olds
   for their pocket change. Free exchanges of goods are NOT a zero sum
   game. [...]  The
   market allocates resources to those that give people what they want.

But compare with the case of John Rockefeller, who really perfected
the system of monopoly.  He became insanely rich, but not by
delivering goods in an improved way to a market, but by circumventing
that market.

The ultimate result of these shenanigans was the definition of an
entire new category of crime, "anti-trust law", and the construction
of a part of government to keep markets functioning when some of the
participants would destroy them.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
From: tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 16:38:56 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
> Groups of guys in blue uniforms? Gangs of men calling themselves "the
> government"? How is that different from lynch mobs (besides being
> paid?)
> 
> >What we need is an anarchy with checks and balances... but I guess that's
> >not anarchy.
> 
> Anarchy doesn't mean chaos. Market forces can be used to check the
> power of organizations under an anarchist system. All anarchy means is
> no monopoly on the legitimized use of force.
> 

the goverment (much as I hate to sound like I am defending it) at
least has checks and balances.  Even the IRS can be appealed.
I've already addressed the fallacy of Market forces in a recent 
posting.  I agree there should be no monopoly on the legitimized use
of force.  I should be able to say "there is a gun pointing out of
your terminal, sign over all your stocks and bonds to me".

--                    
INTERNET:  tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!tumidity
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:32:29 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
> threaten your rights.  These companies might be liable to lawsuits if there
> is negligence.  And a violation of your rights would mean that your security
> company would become involved to help your side in a dispute.  An independent
> court system would probably exist to mediate disputes like the one you mentio
> 
> 	    

That sounds like government to me.  Lawsuits?  Courts?  Keep following
that train of thought and you will wind up with a Bill of Rights!
The sarcasm here is intended to try to prod somebody into explaining
to me how an anarchic system can fulfill the functions of checks and
balances  that  the American style constitution uses to protect
people/property.

--                    
INTERNET:  tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!tumidity
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Anarchy as a newsgroup?
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1992Sep23.221315.28694@shearson.com>
	<DRW.92Sep24111222@euclid.mit.edu> <1992Sep24.194540.9724@shearson.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:19:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.194540.9724@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
   When I state that "War is unprofitable", I mean to say that in
   general, if you are depending on payments from customers rather than
   coercively extracted taxes to fund your operations, [etc.]

Well, yes.  But the question isn't "Will a society organized according
to principle X engage in war?" but "Will a society organized according
to principle X be able to resist being destroyed in a war?"  You can
take it for granted that arbitrarily nasty peoples, states, and
strongmen will come along occasionally.  If one of them can figure out
how to make war a paying proposition, you can be assured that its
empire will grow until it runs into a society capable of resisting
their expansion.  That fact that a voluntarist society can't figure
out how to make war profitable won't stop it from being preyed upon by
societies which can.

Dale
From: gimble@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Are You a Misanthrope?
Date: 4 Oct 92 00:15:26 CDT
Organization: America, Planet Earth

	I have a good friend (who does not have internet access) who wishes 
to pose a question to this forum.  She is a serious naturalist who is 
concerned about her views concerning mankind's actions as a whole.

	To anyone who considers themselves a true misanthrope:  Why?  Why 
are you misanthropic?  What do you believe so much that you would term 
yourself as misanthropic?  What are your reasons for your beliefs?

	My friend has many misanthropic viewpoints, mostly related to 
humankind's destruction of the environment.  She wishes to supplement her 
viewpoints with others' after carefully analyzing each reason and opinion of 
those who respond to this post.

	I will print responses and give them to her, and allow her to respond 
through my or another account.

	Thank you!  :)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 David Caruso II                               Email: gimble@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: robwil@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Wilson)
Subject: Re: Deep South Anti-Columbus Anarchist Gathering
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:35:00 GMT

In <1992Oct5.213546.14158@vela.acs.oakland.edu> wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee) writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.162628.16080@athena.mit.edu>, danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
>>
>>	Columbus was not an anarchist but Columbus did some good that an
>>anarchist can appreciate.  The Spanish Conquistadors destroyed the Aztec and
>>Incan Empires which were also imperialistic.  He also opened up the New World to
>>colonization so that people could escape from tyrannical societies in the Old
>>World.  
>>
>>					Daniel A. LaGattuta

>Colunbus is also credited with discrediting the "Flat Earth" hypothesis.
>Everyone has some kind of redeeming value.


>Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

>Keep the Aspidistra Flying!

Columbus enslaved most of the population of the island he named 'Hispanola' to
mine for gold and other valuable minerals, or to sell them as slaves back in
Europe.  When the colonial masters of the enslaved native population decided
it
was no longer of economic profit to continue their mining operations, they
sealed many of the slaves in the mines and killed the rest.  They annihilated
the native population of the island almost completely.
	Columbus may be credited by many with discrediting the flat earth
hypothesis, but none but the most backward-minded of the period actually
believed the earth was flat.
	Yes, Columbus opened the 'New World' to colonization for Europeans.
Unfortunately for the millions already living there, this colonization meant
slavery and genocide of native people.

Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: None of the above
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 10:53:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep19.195409.17097@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuopala) writes:
>OK, it is not quite like that.  I don't think there happens anything
>if empty ballots win, and unless I'm mistaken the empty ballots are
>counted only separately ie. if there are 5 empty, 5 party_A and 5
>party_B ballots, the results are published as 33 percent empty votes,
>50 percent party_A and 50 percent party_B and party_A and party_B each
>get half the seats.

In other words, casting a vote for NOTA does nothing to
reduce the power of those who do get votes, although
more people may start thinking that those in power have
less "legitimacy" which is a good thing in itself.

However, I think that those who do get elected should
have their power reduced in proportion to the percentage
of votes NOTA receives. 

I can think of two possibilities offhand -

1. Reduce the pay of those who get elected. If 1/3 of
the ballots cast are for NOTA, those elected take a 1/3
pay cut.

2. Require supermajorities to pass the programs of those
who do get elected, as those who voted NOTA obviously do
not support those programs yet do not have any
representative in the legislature to actively vote and
lobby against these programs. 

If we make the assumption that anyone palatable to the
people who voted NOTA would oppose the programs of those
elected AT LEAST 1/2* of the time, then a supermajority
of 50% + (% vote for NOTA / 2) would be required to pass
any of the programs of those elected. So if NOTA
received one third of the vote, a (50 + 33.33/2)% =
66.66% supermajority would be required in the
legislature.

*this number could be changed to make it more palatable
to those who think that the world would fall apart if the
legislature could not easily pass new laws.

--
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: Which brand(s) of anarchy?
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:07:07 MDT
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Reply-To: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu
Organization: University of Utah, CS Dept., Salt Lake City
Distribution: world,local

In article <1992Oct3.212130.13228@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>Do you imagine that there is no value in designing things? That
>understanding how to set up, finance and run a business is worthless?
>You can find millions of people who can lift heavy objects. How many
>people do you know who could do what Bill Gates has done?

Bill Gate bacame a billionaire by telling IBM he would get them an
operating system for their new PCs.  He then went to some people
who had written an operating system and bought it for $50,000.  For the
next 10 years, he became a billionaire letting the operating system
sell itself.  The only significant revision of the OS was MSDOS 5.0.
So, a bunch of creative people create something, and a shrewd business
man gets set for life.  A perfect example of how wonderful capitalism is.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy