HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 09:43:33 GMT

In article <77623@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
}In <BzD0IE.1Gz@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
}
}>They suffered a low standard of living
}
}The result of the low level of technology of the day.

And the low marginal productivity of labor which was inherited from feudalism.

>a high rate of ill-health,
}
}The result of the low level of technology of the day.

And the low marginal productivity of labor which was inherited and improved
under capitalism.


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
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:23:41 GMT

In article <6GT=-9=@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>In article <lisg0fINN27u@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>>The dollar is simply a commodity. Like gold or pork bellies. It's value
>>will remain relative to other commodities, regardless of any
>>Liberatarian government dictum. All discussion about the various merits
>>of binding the value of the dollar to any commodity are rendered void
>>by this simple economic truth.
>>
>
>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.
>
>The government can, at any time, print as many dollars as it wants,
>driving the price down. Farmers can't slaughter as many hogs as they
>want, and miners can't mine as much gold as they want... because there
>is a limited supply of hogs and gold, but not a limited supply of
>dollars. That is both a practical and a theoretical reality.

hear, hear!

>Incidentally, that's also what is meant by having faith in the dollar
>being equivalent to having faith in the President and Congress. You're
>having faith that the government won't decide to devalue your dollars
>by doubling the supply. You don't need to worry about the supply of
>gold suddenly doubling.
>
>Consider this! The government not only _can_, but _does_ inflate the dollar
>by printing more currency. Inflation of 5% / year is considered _good_.
>Think about it! Your dollar today is worth 95c next year! It's worth 91c
>the year after that! In a decade, it's worth 61c! The loaf of bread that
>costs $1.00 in 1992 will cost a staggering $131.50 in 2092. And that's if things
>are going well! With a Democrat in office, we could easily see double-digit
>inflation again.

you will see it, and more, and VERY SOON. and it has nothing to do with
clinton, as much as i'd love to blame it on him. the government's ability
to pay its increasing bar tab is diminishing. very soon, it is likely
to increase its ability to pay by warming up the presses. it has happened
in MANY countries already this century, and it will happen again.
unless the government instead decides to declare bankruptcy.

if you don't believe me, look at the numbers. and read up on the Weimar
republic of Germany in the 20's

>>Perhaps it is the simplicity of my argument that confuses you. Currency
>>is a commodity. Supply and demand determine the value of all commodities.
>
>...and the government controls the supply of currency with an iron fist.
>The supply is theirs to manipulate as they see fit.

exactly. the supply is controlled by only one source.
that does not a free market make.
so obviously the problem with your argument IS that it is too simple --
but not the way you thought.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: libertarian societies
Keywords: libertarian, societies, somalia, thugs, buenos aires
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:47:18 GMT

In article <s0499528.32.0@let.rug.nl> s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis) writes:
}In article <1992Dec11.034150.1082@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
}>Subject: Re: libertarian societies
}>Keywords: libertarian, societies, somalia
}>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 03:41:50 GMT
}>In article <1992Dec9.230403.22324@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> lbs@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (lester.b.shupe) writes:
}>}
}>}Without taxes there is no money to PAY law enforcement.
}>
}>False.  In Beunos Aires there are hundreds of private law enforcement firms.
}>
}Ouch!   Now that is an . ..unfortunate example to say the least. Aren't 
}these the organisations in which regular police officers moonlight with a 
}view to clearing the streets of homeless children? This example serves the 
}libertarian caue as badly as the Somali thugs mentioned by the peron you 
}followed-up to.

I don't know.  Where did you get this impression?

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
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 19:18:26 GMT

In article <1gitt6INNhpo@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
|> There's a real question of whether any nation could compete any more with a
|> gold-based currency.  No matter what the exchange rate, the other nations of
|> the world could simply print currency to buy out all the gold of the GS
|> nation.  I suspect that is the reason why no nation now has a currency based
|> on any real commodity.

Would you sell your gold for currency that was becoming less valuable
every day (because it was being printed by the nonGS nation to buy
gold)?  I would call it stupid.  Then who would sell them gold for
depreciating currency?  In short, only the holders of the nonGS currency
would be screwed.  We could also speculate that people would start
trading evenly their houses for VCRs, but I wouldn't.

|> Another problem is amassing enough gold to actually back the currency.

This raises an interesting logistics question.  How would we phase in a
gold standard?  How much gold would the government need to declare each
dollar worth 1/350 oz.  of gold?  I never have fully understood the
money supply figures, anyway.  M1, M2?
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: corporate government
Date: 14 Dec 1992 23:11:38 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

I was thinking about anarcho-capitalism today, and it occurred to me what the
obvious route to corporate-government feudalism was.  Private governments
would aim much of their attention at the BIG BUCKS: corporations.  And of
course, these corporations would require their subsidiaries and employees
to purchase from the same government: that would provide a "discount" to
the employer for an employee-deduction-paid "fringe benefit".  Sales to
individuals would be too small a market segment, since most individuals would
be "covered" under their employers.

Of course your rights would be exactly what your employer paid to have
protected for you.  Henry Ford would have loved that idea: no government
interference with his company police while they searched employees houses
at whim.

And of course, there would be company stores as well, which would be yet another
"fringe" where you would be required to spend your pre-deducted salary so that
the company would receive a kickback.  This too would be a boom industry
aimed at the franchise for your employer.  Oh, and of course you wouldn't be
able to leave your employment until you paid off your debts at the company
store.

Ah, what a world of choice would be opened up if only we did away with those
awful regulations hobbling business.

Mike Huben

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
						George Santayana
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 21:53:36 GMT

In article <18DEC199214325953@rigel.tamu.edu> gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.175648.24354@inel.gov>, whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray) writes...
> >In article <JBV=qg+@engin.umich.edu>, positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
> > 
> >|> ... 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.  ...
> > 
> >NOT!  Companies can and do issue new stock.  I have personally been a victim
> >of this practice and offer first-hand testimony.
> > 
>
>
>Of course they can,  the analogy is completely wrong.  When a company sells 
>new stock it is increasing its assets,  so the value of the stock currently in 
>circulation should not change (in theory).  A better analogy to what the
>Fed does would be to have the board of directors print up extra stock and keep 
>it for themselves.
>
>Mr. Grinch

	They can do this too.  that's what happens in a typical stock split.

--JMB

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Subject: Re: Somalia, Liberatarian State
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:55:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.044038.9993@unlv.edu> bright@unlv.edu (Paul Conte) writes:
>This morning, I opened up the opinion section of the local paper as I
>usually do.  I enjoy reading it because the editor has a
>semi-libertarian slant which is pretty rare for a newspaper.  But up
>in the left-hand corner, there is a cartoon of Andre Marrou.  Here's
>how it went:
>
>[from the Las Vegas Review Journal (paraphrased)]
>
>Andre Marrou and some side-kick.  Andre says, "No evil bureauracracy
>breathing down our necks!  No socialist-welfare state ruining the
>economy! [and some other stuff I can't remember, although I can
>imagine]"

Too many panels.  We get the general idea....

>
>Next panel.  Andre screaming, "No foreign affairs!  No income tax!!!
>[and some other stuff] And best of all, free and ample dope!!!!!"  He
>takes a drag from his joint.

A common theme in lots of political cartoons.  If a politician doesn't
publicly oppose X, he must really like doing X.

>
>Next panel.  Marrou all excited, "This is libertarian heaven!!!!!!"
>
>Next panel.  Side-kick says, "But sir, this is Somalia."  In the
>background is a man being chased by another man with a gun in a jeep.
>
>That's a pretty vicious cartoon.  Of course, this is to be expected if
>the Libertarian Party ever becomes a force (no pun intended :-) ) in
>politics.

Vicious?  This is nothing compared to what Reagan, Bush, and Clinton 
have been portrayed as in political cartoons.  I think many political 
parodies actually help the popularity of a politician.  Remeber the 
gun-toting, greased hair  Rambo figure Reagan was portrayed as? 

William

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bright@unlv.edu (Paul Conte)
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Keywords: Gold, zealot, oil
Organization: Highly Organized
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 00:16:02 GMT


>In article <liqedgINNra@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>>The assignment of a value to the dollar, in gold or any other commodity
>>(oil), would be arbitrary. This arbitrary assignment would place
>>restrictions on the free flow of other commondities on which it
>>depends, namely interest rates and other currencies, and would interupt
>>the market just as all other government-imposed restriction do.

The problem is that the U.S. government has a monopoly on the printing
of money.  If banks, corporations, whatever, were allowed to print
their own money, we could have a competive market in currency.  There
would be exchange rates just as there are now with foriegn currency.
This would reduce currency to the level of an apple, a pear, a cow, or
whatever else one would want to trade with or for.

One could base HIS/HER OWN judgement of value on a host of things: the
current exchange rate, whether that currency will be excepted by
certain other trading partners, a prediction of the currency's future
exchange rate, the nice colors and pictures on the currency, etc.
Like with credit cards, one chooses where to shop or dine partly based
on whether that place accepts his/her credit card.

Now, if a certain currency company backs its money with gold, and you
like that particular idea, then by all means use their currency.  But
I think that what a currency is backed by would be unimportant in a
true anarcho-capitalist market.  The gold standard is just a product
of government.

But I must confess, that if the government is going to maintain its
monopoly on currency, then I'd rather see a standard of some sort
rather than allowing Mr. Greenspun total control over MY money.

By the way, does money printed by the government truly belong to the
person who at some point in time has it in his pocket?

Paul Conte		"Those who know what's best for us
bright@unlv.edu		 MUST RISE AND SAVE US FROM OURSELVES."
Computer Science					- Rush




Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: libertarian societies
Keywords: libertarian, societies, somalia
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 10:14:18 GMT

In article <1gtc8rINNpso@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}Please tell me how many cities or towns have chosen to privatize their police
}forces.

Please do your own research so that we don't waste our time with all your
rhetorical requests.

}Oh? I'd like to hear what the numbers are an where they come from.  I strongly
}doubt that the numbers are commensurate.

Then you can ask the Reason foundation.  They'll be happy to take such
questions.  They specialize in them.


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
From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:58:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.125935.29064@mr.med.ge.com> gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:
>: 
>: Whenever I read of libertarian/anarchist ideas, I always ask myself "where
>: are the checks and balances that would prevent feudalism from arising?"
>: 
>: We can't simply say "everyone will accept non-coercion".
>: 
>: Why wouldn't people who DO accept coercion against others simply create
>: their own aggressive territorial governments?  Without territorial defense
>: by non-aggressive governments, the aggressive governments ought to be able to
>: simply destroy the non-aggressive governments piecemeal.  Whichever government
>: looked like it would win would be most attractive to customers.  Thus, by
>: this positive feedback we'd achieve feudalism again.
>:
>Feudalism was not free-enterprise. The market system was under tight control
>by the aristocracy. What most Libertarians want is govt. the way it was in 
>the first 100 years of our counttries existence. Many people falsely beleive
>that the system we have now, is the one designed by our forefathers. Nothing
>could be further from the truth. The govt. we have now is a mere shell of what
>was supposed to be. it is closer to Socialism than free-enterprise. We can 
>thank FDR, and those early pioneers in Socialism, at the turn of the 19th
>century for that. 

Agreed that our government has gotten much more socialistic this century,
and has veered away from the original intent of the framers of the
Constitution.  However, I don't believe we really want to return to some
of the 19th Century govt. practices.   For example back then there were 
sweatshops, child labor, Chinese rail workers and more cases of extreme
worker exploitation which the government ignored.  Some regulations like
safety conditions and child labor laws had some good effects.  Also 
we were a bit more expansionistic back then (54'40" or fight!) with 
less regard for some people's rights (women, American Indians, etc...) 
Actually I don't think the gov't of last century was much better than this 
batch of fools. 


William

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea)
Subject: Re: libertarian societies
Keywords: libertarian, somalia
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:52:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.180133.635@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, lbs@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (lester.b.shupe) writes:
|> Someone earlier in this newsgroup was looking for
|> examples of libertarian societies.  Is the country
|> once known as Somalia the closest example?
|> 
|> After reading the 1992 National Platform of the
|> Libertarian Party it seems to be the closest match.
|> If not, then why not?
|> 
|> Les
|> 

What Somalia resembles most closely is the ultimate unraveling of society
so eloquently illustrated in by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged.  Somalia is
a perfect example of a society where reverence for the notion of personal 
property has been eradicated and the use of force i.e. government has 
become the norm for achieving goals.

Non-libertarians tend to have a hard time dealing with changing systems
and "process".  Stasis is always an illusion - a society is always moving
in some direction.  People that ask, as this questioner does, for
examples of libertarian societies are exihibiting a typical misunderstanding.
Libertarianism is not about an end state as are utopian systems.
Libertarianism is about the rules of order for a civil society as it
evolves and discovers its path.  Somalia is a good example of the 
"end of the road" of a process/system that is opposite of libertarian.

-- 
Jim Albea                     albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: gold
Date: 18 Dec 1992 19:52:17 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Dec16.231353.28028@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <1gleu3INNjua@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>>...  We could also speculate that people would start
>>>trading evenly their houses for VCRs, but I wouldn't.
>>
>>Funny you should mention that last, since that is exactly what's happening
>>with our balance of trade in the USA.
>
>not even up.. are you being obtuse intentionally?

I was referring to our balance of trade with Japan.  Sorry not to be more clear.

>>Few people are really interested in holding onto currency or gold.
>>Instead, they invest.  Two major purposes of currency are to have liquidity
>>for transactions and to have commensurate units for comparing values at the
>>moment.  Stuffing matresses is archaic, and leads to a very lumpy, cold
>>bed if you use gold.  :-)
>
>it wasn't archaic 8 or 10 years ago.

My turn to ask; are you being obtuse intentionally?  :-)  Lots of investments
have historically performed much better than gold.

>>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?
>
>because, smartass, there are major monetary policy advantages to not doing
>so. HOWEVER, they are contingent on having a reasonable, responsible,
>confidence-inspiring government, controlling itself so it doesn't need
>gold to do it. Switzerland has one. We do not.

Oh, we're just supposed to accept your bald assertion of contingency?
Give me a break.  Please list the advantages and describe why they are
contingent.

However, in a way your argument does oppose returning the US to a gold
standard.  If nations like Switzerland are enjoying major monetary policy
advantages, then we should not adopt a gold standard which would prevent
us from enjoying those advantages.  It would provide a disincentive for the
improvement you claim we need.

However, you haven't dealt with the case of a country which doesn't have
"reasonable, responsible, confidence-inspiring government": would it be
better or worse to have a gold standard for such a governments currency?
The evidence (based on all the nations of the world) seems to be that the
opinion is gold is not better.

Mike Huben

"Historians will have to face the fact that natural selection determined the
evolution of cultures in the same manner as it did that of species."
Konrad Lorenz in "On Agression" 1966.
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Views? :
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:54:36 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <1992Dec14.160743.22014@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.134148.26485@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>In article <a0R=Lv_@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec13.022756.3194@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>>>
>>>[why gold-backed currency?]
>>>>
>           (stuff deleted)
>
>>>
>>
>>	I think your discription of gold is slightly off.  The demand for
>>gold is relativly small.  The supply is huge, the major holders of gold
>>and the major suppliers, are the people who maintain the high price by
>>chocking off supply.  The natural supply of is very big.  As for golds
>>physical properties that's true. What I would tend to think might be a
>>good medium for exchange that does have an intrinsic value is oil.
>>	Sort of like in early America where we used tabacco.
>>
>This reminds me of the James Blish book _Cities in Flight_.  It was a
>science-fiction novel based on the premise that:
>1) Longetivity drugs were discovered and
>2) A device that could transport whole cities into space was invented.
>
>After a currency collaspe, what ended up being used for the new
>currency were the drugs themselves.  This caused a dilemma- should we
>used the drugs to extend our lives or should we trade them for the
>supplies we need?  Something similar would prob. happen with oil.
>With our country needing money in order to pay off our debts (And no
>Jeff, this is NOT the time to mention your master plan to eliminate
>the debt...) would they enforce a draconian restriction on travel?
>And what would this do to the economy...
>-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
>       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
>
>
>
	Why should they.  If the price oil goes up, the dollar goes up, if
the price of oil goes down the price of the dollar goes down.  Now as for
the drugs analogy, we've been talking about commodities.  There is only a
promise to pay debts in oil.  Finally, think about this in your sci-fi
analogy.  How did a currency callopse happen in the first place:
	probably a non backed currency going into an inflationary spiral. 
That couldn't happend.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,osu.opinion.libertarian,osu.opinion,alt.politics.marrou,cmh.opinion,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton