HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Alan Greenspan
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:38:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.individualism
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Sep21.022013.4527@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

>>on the gold standard. Unless it is stopped, chaos will result.
>
>There will be no such chaos.  As you say, they have been inflating
>the money supply since 1913, why will anything be different in 20 
>or 80 years?  
>
>JD

Prices will be many times higher in 20 or 80 years. When the consumers
and businessmen lose confidence in their currency, hyperinflation marches
in, destroying the economy.

Even if this is a long way off, inflation is deception. Businesses can
report nominal profits, but incur real losses. What inflation does is
direct goods and services away from consumers (blow number 1), and
devalue the unit of currency (blow number 2).

It needs to end.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: stu5s33@bcars6f8.bnr.ca (Robert Nychka)
Subject: Re: A = A. Eat my shorts
Reply-To: stu5s33@bcars6f8.bnr.ca
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:55:17 GMT


tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox) says...
>For those US readers, Objectivism has just hit "The Simpsons".
>(for those outside, check you local satellite TV listings).

The worst part about that episode was that it wasn't even funny, except
for a scene where the head of the nursury (who looks similar to AR) is 
shown reading a book entitled "The Fountainhead Diet".

In a repeat episode that aired immediately after (here), there is a shot to
the Libertarian Party.  It was the episode where Ed Flounders (SP?) opens
a left handed shop, which is slowly going out of business.  Homer asks him
how long he can stay open, and he responds by saying "Two days, and then 
it becomes Libertarian Party headquarters".

Some more Simpson trivia...
Robert Nychka
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free market stuff)
Date: Thu,  1 Oct 92 23:19:10 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Doug Quarnstrom writes:

>In alt.individualism, atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
>
>> 
>> In message <10260022@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, you state:
>> 
>> >In the real world, A is, most assuredly, never equal to A.
>> 
>> Since your opposition to the Holocaust is not equal to opposition 
>> to the Holocaust, you do not oppose the Holocaust.
>
>Fatuous.  That is the nicest thing I can say about your tactics.
>I have been aware of the holocaust since I was a child, and
>it has shaped my awareness in ways you cannot guess.  The fact
>that it occured is one of the most horrifying and distressing
>lessons granted us by the twentieth century.  The millions
>that died are noble martyrs to the truth about human nature, and
>I honor them in my thoughts frequently.  
>
>doug

Since "In the real world, A is most assuredly never equal to A",
your awareness of the Holocaust is, in the real world, most assuredly
not equal to awareness of the Holocaust.  Therefore, you are not aware
of the Holocaust.

Furthermore, in the real world, a fatuous tactic is most assuredly not
a fatuous tactic.  Therefore, my tactics are not fatuous.

    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Date: 28 Sep 1992 17:30:06 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article D99@quake.sylmar.ca.us, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>Absolutely not!  Do you think that what you are typing on right now is both
>a computer and not a computer? (At the same time and in the same respect.)
>Is it possible that you are both in  California and not in California?
>Is it possible that your are both reading and not reading this message?
>

I don't want to tread to far into metaphysics but I don't think the world
is as simple as "can a computer not be a computer?" Zen has many koans
addressing just such questions. And please don't call this position
irrationality or I'll refer to you all as absolutists. Neither characterization
is fair.

No a computer ^ ! computer may both be true because:
1. We disagree on the meaning of a computer. Is an abacus a computer? 
   Is a human a computer? Is a computer a digitial calculating device? Can
   it be analog? Is an AI still a computer? What happens if we just plain
   disagree on definitions? Definition problems are not trivial, they are
   responsible for much ambiguity in the real world, and as such must be
   included in any useful system. Our definitions of computer may overlap
   yet have many non-common elements. How is propositional logic useful
   in this case?

   And I still don't find replies saying "you are assuming A=A in your replies even
   if you don't know it" very convincing.

2. I can hold two or more contractory images, feelings, definitions of a 
   computer in my head at a time, where each is true to me. How does 
   identity work in this case?

3. There's more but I'll stop here.
   

> All that aside, do you really think that facts are not
>fundamental and something in particular once you get down to the bottom 
>level?  Really, I can't believe that you are disagreeing with such a common
>sensical point.  Perhaps you are under the impression that identity implies
>more than it does.
>

I think the issue is what is a fact? Is a fact just a hard piece of atomic truth?
I'll posit two classes of facts: 1) facts as you mean them, 2) facts that are contextual, capable of taking on a range of values, yet still characterize an 
aspect of truth or the real world. Facts from (1) can typically be found in
artificial logic systems, mathematics, and in hard sciences. Facts from (2)
usually concern complex dynamic interactive systems. Tools from (1) do not
necessarily work in (2) as linear extrapolation is insufficient to characterize
chaoitic systems. Most relevant issues for humans in every day life are in 
(2) not in (1).




Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: rjn@FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland)
Subject: Ayn Rand on LaserDisc
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:42:19 GMT
Reply-To: rjn@FC.HP.COM
Organization: Hewlett-Packard/WSY Ft.Collins,CO,USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.3 PL6]

re: Attention Objectivists & other Ayn Rand fans

"The Fountainhead" (Vidor, 1949) has been announced for availability on NTSC
LaserDisc.  The catalog number is MGM/UA ML101774, $34.95 list.  One dealer,
Sight&Sound, Waltham MA (617) 894-8633 has a pre-release discount offer at
$29.71 if ordered before Nov 30.  This suggests an early December release
date.  The presentation will presumably be black&white with mono digital and
analog/CX sound.

The other filmed Rand novel has been available on LD since 1989.  "We The
Living" (Alessandrini, 1942) is the 170 minute version condensed from what
was originally two films.  This is a 2-disc set on the LumiVision label
(LVD8902, $49.95 list).  LVD is black&white with Italian subtitles, mono
digital and analog/CX sound, PVI pressing.

For those who can stand VHS, both of these titles are also available on tape.

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland      Internet: rjn@FC.HP.COM               3404 East Harmony Road
                CompuServe:  71044,2124               Ft Collins CO 80525-9599

This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is not an
official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the Hewlett-Packard
Company.  The text is provided for informational purposes only.  It is
supplied without warranty of any kind.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,sci.econ
Subject: Re: gold standard
Date: 26 Sep 92 11:50:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Sep26.115022.21096
Organization: Western Washington University

"Faustus" <p00056@mail.psi.net> writes:

>[deleted]

>Whoa bucko! What about our needs to increase the money supply.. if 
>we follow the gold standard and gold becomes less in supply without
>increases to the price of gold.. oooowww we will have a small problem Eh?

>Faustus..
>BTW: This argument is nonsensical.. We will never return to such standards
>without a major economic upheaval..

	Yes, your argument is nonsensical.  The supply can never 
become less without a coresponding increase in price. 
Jim D
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: An Urgent Appeal From GREENPEACE
Keywords: An Urgent Appeal From GREENPEACE
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:04:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.154153.27836@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.222039.2496@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes:

>>        Excerpts of  AN URGENT APPEAL FROM GREENPEACE

>> [excerpts of an urgent appeal from Greenpeace]

>>          [Transcription and appeal by John DiNardo]

>Why was this crossposted to alt.individualism?  Greenpeace, being an environ-
>mentalist group, is not noted for its concern for individuals (at least not
>human ones).

Actually, Greenpeace is even a collectivist group in the natural world.
They don't particularly care whether the little fixes kill the little 
bunnies, they only care that humans not do anything to change the world to
be in line with human values.  That makes them simply anti-human rather than
pro-individual animals.  Actually, the folks like PETA are a bit better.
They are at least looking out for the welfare of individuals.  Actually,
for many PETA folks, they are basically just against animals being used
to benefit people.  I suppose that's why some people are members of both.

--Brian
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:32:59 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <Bv1sAC.7JE@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:

>It is an assumption about the meta-language you are using that
>cannot be proven.  When stated with vehemence, it appears to be
>an article of faith, i.e. a religious belief.

*Sigh* Identity is self evident.

>>If you believe this is not true, would you be kind enough to supply
>>us with a counterexample?
>
>The morning star is the evening star.  Surely you know the
>difference between denotations and connotations.

> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Chris, both are Venus. In the context of "the morning star" (Venus in the
morning), it is *not* "the evening star" (Venus at night). What you have
done is dropped the context of the definitions you use. Playing around
with definitions doesn't imply non-identity.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)

-- "You can twist perceptions, reality won't budge"
-- Rush


Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free market stuff)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 01:37:43 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Doug Quarnstrom writes:

>In alt.individualism, atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
>
>> In article <10260027@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug 
>>Quarnstrom) writes:
>> >
>> >Rights are an invention of society.  Rights do not exist in isolation.
>> >They are a political technology.  We, as a society, are free to choose.
>> 
>> In the early 1940's, German society chose not to invent a right to
>> exist for Jews.  Therefore, the Holocaust did not violate anyone's
>> rights.
>> 
>> Imagine MY surprise.
>
>They made a very bad choice.  If this surprises you, you are
>ignorant of history.  Murder and genocide were not invented in
>the 1930s.  The right to life is a critically important
>political idea, and should be vigorously defended by men of
>reason everywhere.  Your argument is demagoguery and in no way subverts
>my assertion that rights are an invention of man.
>
>Of course, your intent is to suggest that somehow I approve
>of genocide.  The tactic is detestable and repulsive. 
>
>doug

In message <10260022@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, you state:

>In the real world, A is, most assuredly, never equal to A.

Since your opposition to the Holocaust is not equal to opposition 
to the Holocaust, you do not oppose the Holocaust.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:41:11 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
>>This argument is getting really strange.  Someone else, I think Chris Holt,
>>brought up the denotation / connotation point.  The point here is that words
>>are irrelevant to reality.

>Are you saying that his point is that words are irrelevant to reality, or
>is that what YOU believe?  If words are unrelated to reality, why bother
>with them?  If words are unrelated to reality, how can words be true or false?
>Does that conclusion apply even to the words "Words are irrelevant to to
>reality."?

Oh for heaven's sake.  Let's take it from the top.  We can take, as a
working assumption, that there exists some kind of objective reality
(while noting that it is only an assumption); and we have access to
that reality via sensory experience, which gives us partial and
distorted information.  We use regularities in our experience to
form models of reality, and these models affect the filtering
process by which we select "important" sensory experiences.  This
is the first feedback loop.

We go from an intuitive, neural-net kind of response pattern to
a formal, deductive structure in order to optimize space constraints
(rules are easier to remember).  This often involves the introduction
of symbols to represent equivalence classes of constants and
variables; some of these are words.  The structure of relations
among words approximates the internal model of reality, and shifts
it; the presence of a word causes us to look for an equivalence
class that corresponds to it.  Thus, words also affect the filtering
process by which we select "important" sensory experiences; and
there is another feedback loop.

What is the point of all this?  It means that words are not
related to reality, in the sense that when we are viewed as
passive observers, that which happens "out there" is independent
of our models.  However, words mediate our perceptions, and
when we are viewed as active participants in shaping reality
they do indeed have an effect.

I brought up denotation/connotation to suggest that the supposed
law of identity "A=A" is basically a meta-rule indicating that
context is to be ignored in equations, that one is intended to
abstract from the way one says things to that which is being
said.  While this characterizes many uses of language, it is
by no means true of all of them ("Rufus is so-named because of
his red hair"); so it's value as a slogan is dubious.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism,talk.environment
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:57:35 GMT

In article <1asd4kINNe4e@agate.berkeley.edu> jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>=o= I realize that a good portion of alt.individualism's
>readership subscribes to a libertarian, objectivist, or some
>variety of conservative ideology, and that these ideologies
>have a tendency to conflate private institutions (no matter
>how powerful) with individuals.  Nothing I say will satisfy
>these people.  I just ask that they bear in mind that their
>dogma is not the alpha and omega of individualism.

How interesting.  I wonder if you'd support an unmoderation of misc.activism.
progressive on the same grounds: "progressives"' dogma is not the only thing
which is progressive just like "individualists"' is not the only thing that
is individualistic....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free market stuff)
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:22:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In alt.individualism, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

> 
> Apparently doug believes that the majority can make something right simply
> by willing it.

Only apparently, since this is not my position at all.
If you wish to subvert your inaccurate portrayal of my position,
I invite you to describe the geneology of rights without
resorting to the evocation of supernatural entities.


doug
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105)
Subject: California Election Review
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:15:40 GMT

I was all aflame with interest when I heard on NPR's "California Election
Review" program (KQED, San Francisco) that they were doing a special on the so
called "Minor Parties".

Imagine my surprise when in that article there WAS NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE
LIBERTARIAN party!

They discussed the "New Alliance" crypto-socialists (42 state presidential 
ballots), the "Greens" (who gives a monkeys arse how many, but less than 50
anyway), and the "Natural Law" party - famed for their psychedelic posters in
the recent UK elections, and their belief that the countries problems can be
solved by transcendental meditation.

I suppose that we should be glad not to be lumped together with these losers,
but still, I did expect some sort of recognition.

What are they so afraid of? There seems to be a conspiracy to prevent the LP
getting any exposure. I'm rather a "popular news hound", but in all my hours
of listening to the radio, I have heard the LP mentioned only once - when
NPR remarked that the LP campaign was not using public money, and was thus
forced to travel around in a brokendown bus.

The LP is on all 50 state ballots, right? So what the fuck is going on here?

Tony Cox, Stanford, CA.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: dmandl@shearson.com (David Mandl)
Subject: Libertarian speaker sought
Reply-To: dmandl@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:00:50 GMT

I'm posting this request for friends of mine who don't have net access:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Book Club*, as part of its ongoing monthly forum series,
would like to host a debate between an anarcho-capitalist (Libertarian
or whatever) and an anti-capitalist anarchist.  We are looking for an
anarcho-capitalist who would like to argue that side (finding an anti-
capitalist should be no problem for us, but if anyone out there is
interested or wants to suggest someone, we'd like to hear from you too).
The LBC is based in NYC; the forums are held in midtown Manhattan.

The forum in question is our November forum, to be held on Thursday 11/19.
It will be well-advertised, and the turnout should be pretty good,
especially since this promises to be a hot debate on a very controversial
issue.  We'd prefer someone who is somewhat well known, such as an LP member,
professor, writer, etc.  Is anyone out there interested?  Do you know anyone
who might be?

* The Libertarian Book Club, founded in the '40s, is the oldest anarchist
group in the U.S.  The group is anarchist, not Libertarian (the word
"libertarian" used to mean "anarchist," and has only relatively recently
been claimed by anarcho-capitalists).
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I know there are thousands of very active Libertarians on the net.
Can anyone help?  Send email c/o me.  Thanks.

   --Dave.

---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
         Dave Mandl            |    Opinions expressed here
       New York City           | are not those of my employer,
   (dmandl@shearson.com)       |          believe me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 10:33:30 GMT
Organization: Quake Public Access

In article <lc9demINNr88@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 717438214@exu.ericsson.se, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>No no no. It isn't denials of nonexistence--or contrapositively, 
>>affirmations of existence--that presuppose assuming anything. It
>>is the formal rules [e.g. identity and noncontradiction] themselves
>>that can't be denied without presupposing them.  Statements expressing
>>these rules don't apparently have existential import.  

>This sound suspiciously like arguments with religious folk who
>say the same thing about the existence of god as you do about A=A.
>Frankly I find both unconvincing. 

Absolutely not!  Do you think that what you are typing on right now is both
a computer and not a computer? (At the same time and in the same respect.)
Is it possible that you are both in  California and not in California?
Is it possible that your are both reading and not reading this message?

If you agree, then you are agreeing with the law of identity.  If not,
You still have to use it in any argument against it (Aristotle's "reaffirmation
through denial").  All that aside, do you really think that facts are not
fundamental and something in particular once you get down to the bottom 
level?  Really, I can't believe that you are disagreeing with such a common
sensical point.  Perhaps you are under the impression that identity implies
more than it does.

--Brian


Newsgroups: alt.individualism