HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjs@world.std.com (Paul J Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:25:48 GMT

steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
: 
: In short, most libertarians outgrow it. :-)

I have met very few ex-libertarians.  Most I know become even more
libertarian after they discover it.  The number of libertarian
organizations is growing, and that indicates more people are becoming
libertarians, not less.  Hayek and Friedman, both Nobel winners in
Economics have not and did not outgrow it.  Even those that once called
for government control over our economic activity are admitting that
governments cannot do as well as the free market.  (And how can they not
now that the U.S.S.R. has collapsed.)  (See recent releases of Paul
Samuelsons Economic text books and compare them to previous editions.)
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:25:15 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
 
>Yes business have and will be guilty of fraud and other dubious behaviors.
>No, we do not need massive government regulation to take care of this
>problem.  If someone defrauds you, sue the pants off them.
   
>The only government needed in this case is a court, and maybe a jail to
>put the little bugger in.
 
>NOTE: Both of these functions can be privatized, but they will still need
>to be backed up by the authority of the government in order to be effective.
  
My reply would be:
 
This simply exacerbates the money-concentration instability, since only those
past a certain threshhold of wealth can use this system to prevent drains
from their wealth. Net effect: if t is the threshhold and w is wealth, the
growth rate of (t-w) is constrained to be positive.

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky sci.econ:6905 talk.politics.misc:40465 alt.activism:15038 misc.headlines:5717
From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:21:32 GMT

From article <22948@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, by tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker):
> In article <1992Aug16.164130.11590@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
>>From article <1073@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, by mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson):
>>> In <1992Aug11.151010.18532@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>>>>.....  As long as you have two
>>>>opposed regulation agencies, they will watch each other for problems.
>>>>In our system, one of those regulation agencies is the media- but that is
>>>>not a sufficient protection alone against business.
>>> Please offer some proof of this assertion.
>>I couldn't resist the urge to respond, because the answer is so easy.
>  
>>Private business is by definition private, and can not be compelled to
>>submit to public scrutiny except by edict of government.  If the press
>>were to try to scrutinize it, it would be one private business trying
>>to regulate another.
>>
>>So we keep it clean.  Government is supposed to be a public agency of
>>regulation, which is itself regulated by the people.  The press is a
>>general agent of scrutiny which, for a price, will pry into anything
>>that appears remotely public, especially government.  I suggest we
>>strengthen that system, not give up on it.
> 
> Are you proposing that the press should be prohibited from investigating
> business fraud?

No, I'm pointing out that the press has no authority to investigate
fraud.  The press frequently reports that so-and-so "could not be
reached for comment."  Are you proposing that the press should have
the authority to supboena witnesses and conduct searches?

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:18:48 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <8313@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> >yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> 
> >>>	Milton Friedman, economically.
> 
> >>The favorite economist of Gen. Pinochet and like minded great leaders the
> >>world over.
> 
> I suppose the dramatic improvements in Chile's economy since they adopted
> Friedman's theories are completely irrelevant.
> 
> The truth is that Chile is in much better shape today than it was 20 years
> ago.  The fact that you do not like the man who was in charge while the
> improvements were taking place does not invalidate the improvements.
> 
> In Pinocet's defence I must say that I was impressed by the fact that when
> he was voted out of office, he actually left.  
> 
> Not many other dictators can make that claim.

Marcos (Philippines) and (maybe) Ortaga (Nicaragua) come to mind.

I'd put Marcos and Pinocet in the same league.

Hitler got the German economy rolling, too...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Empty Philosophies
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:43:01 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <51987@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.003453.3536@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>>Yep, listening to lib'ians telling us that they "don't like paying
>>taxes, shouldn't have to pay taxes, not gonna pay taxes" reminds
>>me of listening to 5 year olds asserting that all they want to eat
>>is ice cream, and they shouldn't have to eat anything else, and
>>they won't, so there.
> 
> I have a different impression. This "it's mine, it's mine" ranting
> of the propertarians reminds me of nothing so much as teenage 
> "stay out of my room"-ism.

	"you must redistribute your income, and I'll do it for you" sounds like
Robin Hood.

	Pity that in real life the redistributors have an overhead that would
sink any corporation.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:41:29 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Aug11.065237.20912@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:

>I think it's a little more complicated than that, and I think some
>Libertarians will mail or post to tell you so.  It isn't that all
>business owners are saintly.  It's that there are enough alert
>consumers so that no business owner could get away with cheating them,
>and the only reason any business owners seem to cheat now is that
>government regulations confuse the issues.

>You and I don't believe that, because it hasn't happened yet.  Snake
>oil came first, then the FDA.

Actually the snake oil salesman is a good example of the problems inherent
in any form of market, or market regulation.  He was a small time operator
who would hit once and then move on before the populace could wise up.

A large company could not get away with this because there will quickly be
no new markets to move to.

It was hard to catch the snake oil man because the warnings against him
could only move as fast as a man on horse could move.  Nowadays the warning
can go out to the whole nation in a matter of minutes.

Basically no matter what system you choose, there will always be frauds.
Even with our "modern" FDA, doing its best to choke off innovation,
modern versions of the snake oil salesman still slip through.
>							Marty
>marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
>Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thomasc@bolyai.geom.umn.edu (Thomas Colthurst)
Subject: Re: Empty Philosophies
Organization: Geometry Center, University of Minnesota
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:12:36 GMT


In article <1992Aug12.223549.13128@gasco.com> fpf@cepheus.gasco.com (Frank Ferguson x3584) writes:
>
> [Personal bickering between Mrs. Ferguson & Wales mostly deleted. ]

>In response to my pointing out the obviously "atomistic" nature of the 
>individual in Libertarian (indeed even Lockean) thought, and the irony
>in the fact that such a thinker would fail to understand the fundamental
>Christian worry about the danger of wealth to the immortal soul; ...

Once again I feel personally summoned to point out the diversity of
Libertarian thought.  Libertarian thought need not be more atomistic
than any other post-Enlightenment philosophy.  Libertarianism is
tainted with materialism to the degree that we all are (if a taint
it be!).  One can be a spiritual, or even Christian, Libertarian;
Novak (see his "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism") has leanings
in this direction.

I must admit, however, that my personal reaction to those with "Christian
worries" (whatever those may be) is "Who cares?"  If aimless anxiety 
about immortal souls and other ghosts doesn't demonstrate the 
ethical bankruptcy of Christian thought, I don't know what does.

But (one more time, boys and girls!) materialist != reductionist !=
individualist != Libertarian.  One can mix and match from the
entire set.

>...  I must point out that
>anyone who thinks Marx lacks a non-materialist, humanist side obviously
>has not done HIS reading, and merely demonstrates his ignorance in his
>flippant "Marx?  A solution to Materialism?" response.  
>

Marx's humanism is a subject of perennial and pointless debate.  To the
best of my reading, Marx was universally believed to a materialist
during his lifetime, and later rediscovered in the twentieth century by
Luckas and Fromm (primarily) to be a humanist.  I would accuse Fromm
of a shallow reading of Marx, but recently on sci.econ the term
"shallow" has come to develop positive connotations.

>Francis P. Ferguson
>fpf@gasco.com

-Thomas C
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Regional currencies
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:04:59 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Aug16.193523.1317@babbage.ece.uc.edu> dsims@leo.ece.uc.edu (David Lyle Sims) writes:
>
>I recall that way-back-when banks actually issued their own currency.  Is
>this practice still legal, feasible, or useful?

Visa, MasterCard or American Express?

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
What is the world's largest government subsidy to agriculture,
terrorism, speedboat manufacturing, organized crime, and prison
construction?
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: It's not a Depression because prices aren't falling?
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 13:26:05 GMT

In article <seX8v_600awBAeOEV1@andrew.cmu.edu> Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>The theory is
>that if interest rates are sufficiently low, people will be inclined to
>borrow money and take advantage of the low rates.  This increases
>spending and pulls us out of the recession.  It is of limited value in
>reality, although it is a good theory.  

   I would like to add that while this is true, the reason the Feds lowering
of interest rates has received so much attention is simply because our
"in debt" government has crippled its ability to deal with recessions 
through other means.   Essentially, the lowering of interest rates by
the Fed is meant to be a "last defense" effort to be used only in conjunction
with other actions.  As it stands now, the Fed is virtually the only
source of government power to "fight recession".  

  However, I would argue that a couple of additional flaws in this theory
are that (i) the budget deficit is too high which undoes much of the good that 
lower interest rates may do and (ii) although personal and corporate debt have
declined substantially, it is clear that people are still uncomfortable
with their level of debt and are uninterested in borrowing at virtually
any rate.  I've heard estimates here and there (WSJ) that point (ii) could 
continue for up to another 12 months.

  As an aside, considering our rather jittery congress, 
I'm rather glad they didn't propose a "recession fighting" plan.  It
really seems to me that anything they would have done would likely have
done more long-term harm than good.


Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Summary: Leave my heroes alone
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:39:35 GMT
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company

In article <2056@usna.NAVY.MIL> potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF)) writes:
>
>  steve@thor.isc-br.com (steve Hendricks) writes:
>:
>: In short, most libertarians outgrow it. :-)
>
> Funny, I don't think that Thomas Jefferson ever did....

Watch out which saints you appropriate.  I'm not willing to sacrifice
Jefferson to a selective interpretation of his writings.  If libertarianism
is willing to limit its applicability to an agrarian society of small
free-holders (Jefferson's ideal) with limited communication and small
scale production, you're on stronger ground.  But it's my impression
that libertarians claim their "theory" is applicable to industrial,
urban society.  Jefferson never did.

Furthermore, Jefferson's actions as President significantly extended the
power of the executive branch (c.f. the Louisiana Purchase, military 
adventurism.) You might want to be careful appropriating him on these
grounds.

Jefferson was a profound poltical theorist (though very much limited to
his historical context) and an able President.  Claiming him as a 
modern Libertarian is a religious, not an analytic enterprise.


--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
   ISC-Bunker Ramo Corp.  ms LL2-2B    |  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
   E. 22425 Appleway                   |  Ma Bell: 509 927-7034
   Spokane, WA  99220-4008             |  FAX: 509 927-2499
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarian rebuttal..
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:04:51 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug16.165330.11788@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
...
> I haven't seen a consistent platform in this newsgroup.  I still don't

	You can FTP Libertarian documents from think.com

> know what that consistent platform is.  I agree that the Democrats and
> Republicans don't have consistent platforms - has it ever occurred to
> you guys that that's why they keep getting elected, and the
> Libertarians don't?

	They keep getting elected because they keep presenting themselvs as the
only two choices.  Did you see how scared both parties got when Perot was
showing strength?  And how both parties rushed to embrace his supporters?  One
of their most repeated arguments was that "he wouldn't be able to make deals
with congress"!

	Sounds like what should have been a Perot slogan. :)

> A politician's first responsibility is to get elected.  If that doesn't
> happen, somebody else gets to make the decisions.

	Their first responsibility should be to their constituents.  You are
helping to propagate the myth that only the ONE TRUE CANDIDATE can do good.

>>  Then again, perhaps they do have a common platform -> socialism!
> 
> Is that part of the Libertarians' "consistent platform," or was it
> just a wild shot?  As I see it, their common platform is nothing so
> abstract: just plain power.

	Au contriare.  If all they wanted was power, they'd drop some the more
more controversial apsects of their platform.

> Summary:  Libertarians claim consistency but haven't shown it - nor
> have they shown the political savvy to do much more than complain.

	Grade: D-.  Do some research, then resubmit your report :).

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Government meddling...
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:53:24 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <2003@usna.NAVY.MIL> potter@attila.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF)) writes:
>
>  In response to Mr. Romano....
>
>     The Libertarians have never claimed that greed, corruption or deceipt
> will magically cease to exist. These are human flaws that result from
> culture and human nature. Having government pass laws to protect people
> has never solved anything either. Have prostitution laws ended solicitation?
> Have anti-drug laws ended marijuana use? Have anti-fraud laws ended fraud?
> The consumer must always be aware and cautious that is a fact of life. The
> problem is the more power the government is given to 'protect' me the more
> power government has over all aspects of my life. I was never given a choice
> as to whether I approve of drug use, or prostitution. Yet my taxes pay to
> 'protect' me from these things.

This is so very shallow and specious that it deserves an award.
Following libertarian deductive rule #1 namely
            Exists x. P(x) -> forall x. P(x)
you prove that the absence of total protection for consumers
via regulation implies that regulation offers no protection.
Then, following libertarian deductive rule #1 again
you prove that the existence of some pernicious forms of government
regulation proves that all forms of government regulation are 
pernicious.
>   Government forces are strictly reactionary. If someone breaks into my home
> and murders my wife - the police can only react after my wife is dead! Now

Complete hogwash.  Take a simple example of popular regulation of
the marketplace: government inspection of retailers weights and
measures. Clearly, random inspection of scales is not "reactive"
or intrusive.



> what help is that? It is my responsibilty to protect myself and family
> before the fact, perhaps preventing a murder. The government law against
> murder does not protect me! Some one is jailed but my wife would still be
> dead! Government intervention is coercive and solves nothing!

Geez. I feel better knowing that Jeff Damer and Chuck Manson are
in jail, must be my leninst politics.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Bush, Reagan and Deficit cutting (was Bush or Clinton)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:00:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug14.090728.2976@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>Stockman said the unraveling of FY 1982 spending cuts was when Jessie Helms
>asked that the tobacco subsidies not be cut.  Jessie never asked for any other
>spending and since the tobacco subsidies are a relativly small part of the 
>overall budget, Stockman agreed.  After that whenever Stockman suggested any
>other cuts, the response was "Jessie got his, why can't I have mine".  Stockman's
>major problem was that he could not even get cuts throught the Reagan cabinet.


  Right.  Stockman suffered from the same kind of naivete that I
  call Usenerdism here on Usenet:  the idea that a good engineering
  design or formal model is correct or sufficient to function in
  the real world of human beings.  As I've said many times here,
  politics is as real as gravity.  It's a basic force of the universe
  and employing it, addressing it, or acknowledging it is no more
  distasteful, low, or disreputable than the use of differential
  equations or computers.  


---peter
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Empty Philosophies
Date: 16 Aug 92 13:28:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Aug15.021236.10452@news2.cis.umn.edu> thomasc@bolyai.geom.umn.edu (Thomas Colthurst) writes:
>Once again I feel personally summoned to point out the diversity of
>Libertarian thought.  Libertarian thought need not be more atomistic
>than any other post-Enlightenment philosophy.  Libertarianism is
>tainted with materialism to the degree that we all are (if a taint
>it be!).  One can be a spiritual, or even Christian, Libertarian;
>Novak (see his "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism") has leanings
>in this direction.

Thus, "libertarian thought" is ranges from the absurd: "all evil
comes from the government and all good comes from pure individualism", 
to the banal: "minimizing government intrusion into personal life
is a worthy goal." And, in response to any critque of libertarian
plank X,  the libertarian may, with confidence, point to an array of
equally silly  libertarian positions which contradict X. Of course,
the platform of the Libertarian Party is a little more difficult to
finesse in this manner.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7036 alt.individualism:5297