HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:38:08 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov12.012720.11111@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:

> > The counter-argument here is that if government is reduced to these
> > three services, there would be more crime and also more civil court
> > cases, so the size of these would be considerably increased.  As 
> > there is little evidence either way, it requires an act of faith 
> > (based on one's understanding of human nature) to state that the 
> > total cost would be much, much less than now.
> 
> little evidence?
>   1. expense would go down. drastically. look at a pie chart of where
>      tax dollars go in the US, then eliminate the arcs that represent
>      the areas Libertarians would cut. there's your reduction of
>      expenses.

This is less than clear.  Take, for example, the regulation or law that 
forces food producers to print a list of ingredients on their labels.
For all practical purposes, once the law is on the books, the expense to
the government is zero.  But this law is unlibertarian, so out it goes.
Producers may now make "lite" food that is not "lite," low-sodium food
that is not low-sodium, and if you don't think they won't, you haven't
been reading the news.  The result would seem to be a large increase in
the number of fraud suits by consumers against producers, and this does 
translate to a government expense in the libertarian order.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2254 alt.politics.libertarian:1852
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Date: 13 Nov 1992 11:35:09 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

| The Constitution does not merely protect you from abuse: it also states
| how your responsabilities to the government (as embodied by laws) shall be
| decided.  If that's not clear enough responsability, you can look at what
| article 3 says about treason.

I did.  It says that "Treason against the United States, shall consist
___only___ in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."  [emphasis added]  It also
cites "overt Acts", not "failure to assume your responsibilities."

This is so antithetical to the absurd point you're trying to make,
I wonder why you mentioned it.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter)
Subject: Re: First Election Results!!!!!!!
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:40:05 GMT

In article <Bx7D6C.62s@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>It's obvious, isn't it?  NOBODY IN AMERICA voted for anyone but Bush,
>Clinton, and Perot.  Not one single voter.  If they had, the free press
>of America, that unbiased and fair source of information for the
>nation, would have told us about it.

Actually, according to the Wednesday Boston Herald, this is exactly the
case:


				POP VOTE	PCT
	        ...
		MARROU/LORD	0000000000	000%
		OTHERS		0000000000	000%

I wonder which of the "three national candidates" Andre and Nancy ended
up voting for?

--- Russ McFatter [russ@alliant.COM]
    std. disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:49:57 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>The counter-argument here is that if government is reduced to these
>three services, there would be more crime and also more civil court
>cases, so the size of these would be considerably increased.

This would be a hard argument to support considering in the current
system, we already have more people incarcerated per capita than any
other country in the world, the most lawyers, and probably the most
litigation.  The drug war alone soaks up about half the money we spend
for law enforcement.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Local Libertarian government
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:09:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov11.191606.11105@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes...
>ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
>[...]
>so what's the best way to promote libertarian ideals
>on local level? how would a libertarian city government work, for
>example?
> 

	Well, you would have to GET there first.  The three most
important things a Libertarian city administration would have to
carry out are to privatize, privatize, and privatize.

	Privatize garbage collection, fire departments, street
maintainance, etc.  Many cities around the country are doing some
of these things.  Just about anything that can be privatized has
been privatized, somewhere.  A Libertarian city administration
would make sure that all privatization successes everywhere in
the country would be reproduced all at the same time in the
Libertarian city.  It would be a shining example for other cities
to emulate.

	There are other things such a city could do.  Certainly,
any influence that the city government has over personal liberties
should be turned in a Libertarian direction.  There might not be
much that could be done about federal or state influence in this
area.

	Also, zoning laws could be repealed... along with other
harmful city regulations.

	So, what would be left?  Good question.  Possibly the only
thing would be city police whose job it would be to protect people's
individual rights.


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:17:59 GMT

In article G8v@news.cso.uiuc.edu, belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell) writes:
>Would you agree then that this is a MANDATE against both Bush and Perot?
>Even Walter Mondale got a larger percentage of the vote than they did.

Absolutely.

---
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4
	Did William Faulkner have little creatures on his old typewriter?
	If so, they were the product of whiskey, which addles the brain less
	than cartoon creatures and menus and buttons that send messages to
	the screen demanding: "Abort? Quit? Try Again? Drop Dead? Exit? Go To
	Hell You Schnook?" - Mike Royko

Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2249 alt.politics.libertarian:1846
From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:06:02 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: icat.larc.nasa.gov

rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:

>This is a valid point, but it does not follow from this that we have the
>highest percentage incarcerated of any other nation simply because
>*most* other countries "cheated" by killing instead of incarcerating.
>Are Americans inherently more criminal than all other countries except
>the ones you mention, in police states or civil wars?

Well, that I can't answer.  I only responded before because I've seen our
incarceration rate used so frequently to support so many arguments that I
just wanted people to THINK about other possible causes for differences
between countries.  By the way, all of the other "developed" nations with
lower rates than the U.S., do they have comparable populations, economies,
ethnic diversity (e.g. Japan CERTAINLY does NOT), etc?  There are so many
factors... it is not necessarily the case that we have too many people in
jail because we have too many laws.  This may be TRUE, but certainly our
incarceration rate is inconclusive evidence.

Not meant as a flame.  Just thought that other things ought to be considered
in the discussion besides incarceration rates.

Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681
Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-7793,   Email: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov
PGP 2.0 Public Key now available -- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
-- 
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681
Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-7793,   Email: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov
PGP 2.0 Public Key now available -- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson)
Subject: Re: LibEcon (Was: Re: Marrou shows his true colors!)
Reply-To: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
	<1992Nov3.193443.26649@b30.ingr.com>
	<1dbctvINN5b8@armory.centerline.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:21:30 GMT

In article <1dbctvINN5b8@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
[...]
   >For a fact, if you were to get your LibEcon 101 mostly from USENET,
   >you'd be getting a very skewed sample ...

   Good point.  Why is it that most libertarians on the net seem incapable of
   effectively transmitting theory from someone like Hazlitt, and instead
   rely on bumpersticker slogans and one step thinking?

It's hardly limited to libertarians, Mike, it may seem that way
because there are so many on the Net. I think the medium presently
encourages snappy responses. I like to use net.arguments as an excuse
to do research, and as such they are becoming less personal and
possibly even more logical, albeit a little slower. The Grand Unified
Interconnected HyperEverything will help if it ever arrives.

   I'd like to see such examples of downstream consequences made explicit
   when I argue with libertarians.  Please exhort your fellows to be a little
   less shallow if they want to argue.

I had ancestors who were "exhorters" in the frontier Methodist church
(that's a preacher without a divinity degree). However, I don't think
sticking to your principles is shallow _per se_.

[...]
   My reaction to Mensa is "Eeewww..."  A matter of taste.

<grin> It sure is. For the record, I am not a member, mainly because
the entrance requirement is too lax :-)

   >David D. Friedman did a short piece on evaluating policies in
   >_Machinery of Freedom_. [...]

   So Friedman would advocate libertarian principles over severe disutility?
...
Let me table this until I can re-read what I was paraphrasing, since I
know that DDF was working from case studies, which will help keep us
from generalities and inanities and arguments that go "squish" on the net.

-- Craig Presson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2251 alt.politics.libertarian:1849
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Date: 13 Nov 1992 19:10:02 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1e0p0dINNch4@cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu> peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>| The Constitution does not merely protect you from abuse: it also states
>| how your responsabilities to the government (as embodied by laws) shall be
>| decided.  If that's not clear enough responsability, you can look at what
>| article 3 says about treason.
>
>I did.  It says that "Treason against the United States, shall consist
>___only___ in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
>Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."  [emphasis added]  It also
>cites "overt Acts", not "failure to assume your responsibilities."
>
>This is so antithetical to the absurd point you're trying to make,
>I wonder why you mentioned it.

Yes, I guess I wasn't clear.  The constitution not only limits the
government's privileges, but also directly limits some freedoms of all
individuals, such as giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime.

Probably more apropos would be Article VI:
    Section 2.  This Constitution, and the laws of the United States
    which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made,
    or which shall be made, under the authority of  the United States,
    shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
    State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws
    of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Implicit in this article is the responsability of individuals to follow
the laws, and the ability of the laws to constrain freedoms where not
otherwise prohibited by the constitution and ammendments.

Mike Huben
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: semi-automatic weapons
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:03:23 GMT
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) says:

>In the week before the election, the subject of Andre Marrou
>happened to come up a number of times. Apparantly, he was
>on National Public Radio recently (I missed it).
>
>Of all the folks I spoke with, three of them had heard of
>Marrou. All three knew about him due to the NPR interview
>(seemingly great so far). All three of them are traditional
>Democrats who aren't comfortable with Clinton. All three,
>earlier in the year, were at least interested in the LP.
>
>All three of them were firmly convinced that Andre Marrou
>is a lunatic, because of some comments he made about the
>right to own semi-automatic weapons. Apparantly, one reason
>given was to protect ourselves from the government.
>
>Now I am a Libertarian, and voted for Marrou, so don't
>flame me. But it seems that to universally offend
>potential voters (who agree with other Libertarian positions)

I think there is a lot of sense to what you are saying, and on
some issues I think we will have to compromise, if we wish to
win elections.

I don't think that is an option here, though.  For the LP to
back off on gun control would be a little like the Democrats
backing off on civil rights...it just ain't gonna happen.

Having said that, perhaps we could find less confrontational
ways to state our position...and certainly we need to educate
the population on this subject.  There are a lot of lies and
half-truths floating around about guns, which have led in turn
to some incredibly bad policies.

>by making a paranoid-sounding comment about semi-automatic
>weapons on NPR was rather short sighted.
>
>Just my $0.02.
>
>Ed Stokes
>ebstokes@crd.ge.com
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: semi-automatic weapons
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:03:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov11.143429.14710@crd.ge.com>, ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes...
>Exactly ! My response to all three was that this idea, to protect
>ourselves from a tyrannical government, came from Jefferson. This
>just resulted in blank stares...
> 
>It seems that in my ordinary conversations with otherwise intelligent
>people, the idea that the government will ever get so bad as to require
>self protection is _universally_ viewed as paranoid.

	Try mentioning Nazi Germany.  Point out that the economy got so bad
there that out of desperation they decided to elect a dictator.  Point out
that the economy is getting worse here, and if we fall into a depression, then
even the American people may get desperate enough to give up all rights to
some American dictator.  If they still don't believe it, point out that the
Germans before Hitler would probably not have believed it themselves.

> 
>Now I don't think that we should compromise on principles, but we
>should examine the fact (?) that maybe the American public is
>not ready for a Libertarian federal government. Maybe, instead
>of blowing a wad on an unwinnable presedential race, we should
>blow 1000 milliwads on possibly winnable state and local races.

	That's an idea that is being discussed among Libertarians as
we speak.  It's one reason why Libertarians can vote "None of the Above"
in the nominating process.  If NOTA wins, no Presidential candidate
would be run.  Of course, Libertarian Presidential candidates are not
currently being run to win.  Rather, the point is to stir up media
publicity.  We could question whether this is the right approach to
take.

> 
>We have to get our principles accepted at the local level before
>anyone will accept them on a grand scale. In other words, semi-automatic 
>weapons are not an issue in the town council race...

	Good point.

> 
>Ed Stokes
>ebstokes@crd.ge.com

Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: free market
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: GrinchCo
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:07:00 GMT

For those who care,  here's the essential argument for a free market:

1) a free (uncoerced) transaction is beneficial to both parties (otherwise 
they wouldn't make the swap),  thus resulting in an increase of total utility.

2) Any interference with the free market is effectively a constraint which
prevents utility-increasing transactions from taking place.

Helpful St. Grinch
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Aborti
From: ken.mason@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us (Ken Mason) 
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:43:00 GMT
Reply-To: ken.mason@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us (Ken Mason) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The Batchelor Pad PCBoard ~ Long Beach, CA ~ +1 310 494 8084

SZ.real bottom line reason I believe that the "libertarians" can never
SZ.get anywhere. People aren't reasonable. We can pass laws and repeal
SZ.laws. It won't change the way people act.

        A rhetorical question for you, then...why bother passing laws if
        people aren't going to be reasonable and obey them?  By your
        line of "reasoning" (using the term -extremely- loosely) there
        should be fewer laws, not more.  Gee, you may actually be a
        libertarian after all!

        <removing tongue from cheek>
---
 . EZ 1.39 .  Notice they do not so much fly as plummet.
                                         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: free market
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:03:48 GMT

In article <8NOV199221071536@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>For those who care,  here's the essential argument for a free market:
>
>1) a free (uncoerced) transaction is beneficial to both parties (otherwise 
>they wouldn't make the swap),  thus resulting in an increase of total utility.
>
>2) Any interference with the free market is effectively a constraint which
>prevents utility-increasing transactions from taking place.

  What if the transaction is harmful to third parties who are not participants
in the transaction. This applies to all kinds of situations including victims
of theft, victims of pollution, etc. Not all utility increasing is beneficial
to society as a whole or to anyone other than the immediate participants. That
is why completely free, unregulated markets are not appropriate in complex
societies with non-ideal participants and competing interests.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: free market
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:25:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.174828.3583@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
}
}And a fundamental problem with a completely free market is that it
}tends towards conditions in which a free market does not thrive -
}concentration of power - irrespective of government influence.

What?  You must be operating with a definition of laissez-faire that deviates
from that used in the economics literature I'm familiar with.  Care to
elaborate?


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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2074 alt.politics.libertarian:1591
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Vote Totals for Marrou, Please!!!
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:34:00 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

eldarop@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Jesse Pietarinen) writes:
> 
> We're trying to get a national vote total together, and since the 
> Feds won't tally up Marrou/Lord campaign vote totals, we're trying 
> to get totals by county for each state.

this is screwed. what about states where we need a certain % of the
votes to get automatic ballot access? are the votes totaled on a
state level at least? if the states are doing it it would be a lot
easier to get the results by state.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`      "We are errant knaves, all; believe none of us." - Hamlet      `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`