HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Charity vs. gov't handouts. (was Re: Abandoning the Sinking Ship)
Date: 6 Sep 92 11:09:44
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov's message of Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:51:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.235139.16857@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>In article <BtzDsv.Bt6@csn.org> rks@teal.csn.org (Reykja K. Sigurdsson) writes:
>>Look at what is happening
>>to the folks in Florida. Bush wants to take up donations to house and
>>feed those *tax-paying* people -- who now must depend on charity! 

>There are several assumptions implied by the view expressed here
>(and elsewhere):

>	- that the payment of taxes somehow entitles one to compensation for
>	  damages caused by natural disasters (such as the Florida hurricane).

>I would like to see some discussion of these notions, on the net.
>Any comments????

I agree with your other points, but...

Given that the government confiscates 30-50% of the wealth of these
people through direct federal, state, and local taxes (and yet more
through indirect costs of corporate taxes, tariffs, etc.), I don't
think it's unreasonable for them to expect some of their money back
when faced with a natural disaster.

The problem is that government boneheadedness inevitably gets in the
way of the efficient use of these funds, anyway.  An example I heard
on the radio -- the Army arrived with truckloads of relief supplies,
but didn't bring the forklifts necessary to unload these trucks, so
they searched around for forklifts, and they found some at a nearby
National Guard armory.  So everything worked out fine, right?  Wrong.
These were _National_Guard_ forklifts, and they weren't about to let
the _Army_ use them...

>Marrou sensibly stayed out of it, in accordance with his view of
>the 3 parties:  

>	The Demoblicans say:  Give us your money; we'll solve your problems.
>	The Replicrats say:  Give us your money; we'll ignore your problems.
>	The Libertarians say:  Keep you money; solve your own problems.

I think this sums it up pretty well.  Imagine how much hurricane
insurance you could buy with even a small fraction of the money you
pay in federal income taxes alone.

Yes, it's true that very poor might not be able to afford such
insurance, but at least the nonprofits (Red Cross, Salvation Army,
etc.) could focus their efforts on helping these people, since the
more affluent would be taken care of by the private sector.  (I was
impressed that the insurance adjusters seemed to arrive far in advance
of the bulk of the federal relief armada.)  The current situation
overwhelms the nonprofits' resources because they have to try to help
*everyone*.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: mcbeeb@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Brian Mcbee)
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"?  Intrnat'l response wanted!
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 16:44:58 GMT

In article <10260021@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>In alt.individualism, atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
>
>> >Note that these criterion DO NOT
>> >count as freedoms things like medical care, housing, welfare, etc.  These
>> >would be relevant to discussing which nations take the best care of people;
>> >instead, I want to discuss those nations which leave people alone.
>> >--
>> >Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
>> >                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
>> 
>> If "take the best care of people" is the usual social-democratic
>> euphemism for collecting taxes at gunpoint from some, to buy free lunches
>> for others, then the distinction is well taken.
>
>If "collecting taxes at gunpoint" is meant to describe a system
>where most people pay taxes more or less willingly 
>because the burden is not all that heavy, then the distinction is
>well taken.
>
>doug

"More or less willingly????"  Take away the gun and see how many still pay!

Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Charity vs. gov't handouts. (was Re: Abandoning the Sinking Ship)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 10:22:33 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Sep6110944@sartre.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|> 
|> >Marrou sensibly stayed out of it, in accordance with his view of
|> >the 3 parties:  
|> 
|> >	The Demoblicans say:  Give us your money; we'll solve your problems.
|> >	The Replicrats say:  Give us your money; we'll ignore your problems.
|> >	The Libertarians say:  Keep you money; solve your own problems.
|> 
|> I think this sums it up pretty well.  Imagine how much hurricane
|> insurance you could buy with even a small fraction of the money you
|> pay in federal income taxes alone.
|> 
|> Yes, it's true that very poor might not be able to afford such
|> insurance, but at least the nonprofits (Red Cross, Salvation Army,
|> etc.) could focus their efforts on helping these people, since the
|> more affluent would be taken care of by the private sector.  (I was
|> impressed that the insurance adjusters seemed to arrive far in advance
|> of the bulk of the federal relief armada.)  The current situation
|> overwhelms the nonprofits' resources because they have to try to help
|> *everyone*.
|> --

I recently read an editorial (by Sowell?) which talked about the
differences between public relief efforts and private relief efforts.
The author made the point that in the case of insurance, it was to
the benefit of the business to respond quickly.  If an insurance
firm doesn't respond quickly and efficiently, it will likely lose
business.  The economic incentive is for the firm to take prompt
action.  Government efforts, however, have no incentive.  The
bureaucrats running the operation get paid the same salary whether
they are effective or not.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson)
Subject: Alan Greenspan
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:27:54 GMT

	Alan Greenspan wrote an article which appeared in one of Ayn Rand's
essay collections about the value of a gold standard.  Now that he is the
head of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, is he working on returning to the
gold standard and abolishing the American central bank, or what?
-- 

Peter Johnson	       "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience	
Independent Studies     cannot blindly follow orders." --Capt. Jean-Luc
University of Waterloo  Picard (Patrick Stewart) to Adm. Haftel, STAR TREK:
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: free market
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:23:35 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <10260023@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
>Subject: Re: free market
>Date: 14 Sep 92 14:50:48 GMT

>In alt.individualism, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

>> But who really wants this free society anyway--we'll all be dead eventually,
>> right???

>Ah yes, the straw man.

>I would assume that most people want free society, but they
>merely differ on how to get to a society that is truly free and
>just for all.

>doug


Exactly! I have just now got my Republican co-worker to admit that he 
believes that "Some government regulation of the economy is necessary", so 
that now we agree to disagree.  But what should a Libertarian say to my co-
worker, besides "No, regulation isn't necessary" or "No, that always leads
to government bureacratic controls, etc, etc"?  What is the strongest 
argument against any kind of government regulation of business? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Subject: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free market stuff)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:09:29 GMT

In article <10260022@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug 
Quarnstrom) writes:

>In alt.individualism, fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
>
>> 
>> If a system of government is based on individual rights, and, through the
>> democratic process, it is decided that a 40% taxation rate is not a 
>>violation
>> of individual rights, is that a workable system?  A is A.
>
>It depends ENTIRELY on what you mean by 'workable'.  We have, so
>far, done ok with it.
>
>In the real world A is, most assuredly, never equal to A.
>
>"
>doug

That means we can wish for sunny days, taxes for the rich, guaranteed 
jobs, a healthy economy, anti-trust laws, a free market economy,
gun control, freedom, everything.  Everything will be happy and 
lovely!  And we'll get all of those things because we wish for them!

What?! Some of those things are inconsistent?!  We can't bilk the rich 
without destroying the economy?  Government can't keep printing fiat 
currency without devaluing it?  It's a police state and no longer free
when only the police are allowed to have guns?!  A free market economy
means that, beyond the concept of valid contracts, anti-trust laws
are anti-free market?  Wow. That implies that A _IS_ A after
all!  We can't have that!  That goes against our wishes!

STANDARD DISCLAIMER

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------

"I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America." -- Alexis de Toqueville
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Pledge of Allegiance
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:49:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.160327.9199@ms.uky.edu> tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) writes:
>I was listening to an interview with Gore Vidal on Fresh Air this weekend,
>and he said that the Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the words
>"Under God" until sometime in the late forties or early fifties.  I can't
>remember the exact date.
>
>Is this true?  And if so, why don't we start a movement to go back to the
>older form minus the Unde God.

"Under God" was added during the Eisenhower administration.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free market stuff)
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:49:21 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In <10260022@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:

>> If a system of government is based on individual rights, and, through the
>> democratic process, it is decided that a 40% taxation rate is not a 
>> violation
>> of individual rights, is that a workable system?  A is A.

>It depends ENTIRELY on what you mean by 'workable'.  We have, so
>far, done ok with it.

Well, OK, bad choice of words on my part.  The point is, however, that no
matter how many people decide that slavery is OK, slavery is *still* a
violation of human rights.  No matter how many people decide that 40%
taxation is OK, it's *still* a violation of rights.  A is *still* A.

-- 
ben                                     fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

"A tight bunch of bastards who want to win while loving each other"
- Dave Hasbrook, about the Indiana Ultimate team
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re:  Pledge of Allegiance
Date: 15 Sep 1992 17:38:01 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
>Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Pledge of Allegiance
Date: Mon Sep 14 17:54:27 1992

tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) writes:

| I was listening to an interview with Gore Vidal on Fresh Air this weekend,
| and he said that the Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the words
| "Under God" until sometime in the late forties or early fifties.  I can't
| remember the exact date.

The pledge itself was first published in the 8 Sept 1892 (Hey! its
centennial passed without notice) issue of _The Youth's Companion_
in Boston.  The words "under God" were added on 14 June 1954.

Reference:  1990 Information Please Almanac

| Is this true?  And if so, why don't we start a movement to go back to the
| older form minus the Unde God.

I have a better idea.  Why don't we scratch the whole idea of pledging
allegiance to a piece of cloth.

Mike Peercy
peercy@chrc.uiuc.edu
----------------------------------------------------

Why don't we scrap the pledge?  How about because it is not merely
a pledge to "a piece of cloth", but to a much more complex concept
symbolized by a piece of cloth?  No one has yet manged to get man
to abandon his symbols...much as some materialists have tried.
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:45:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has already been posted)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

In alt.individualism, bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:

> In article <10260017@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)  
> writes:
> > Indeed, with the caveat that in the past business leaders sometimes
> > did things like using prison labor to break strikes and drive down
> > labor costs.  Sometimes business has to be prevented for certain
> > actions, in my opinion, even to preserve the idea of a free market.
> > 
> > One of the things that keeps me from endorsing libertarianism is the
> > fact that a lot of discourse I see from net.libertarians seems to
> > deny the very real fact that it is entirely legitimate for people
> > to worry abous sytemic methods (checks and balances) that can
> > be used to prevent injustice and the perception of injustice.
> > 
> 
> Except for those who espouse anarcho-liberalism, libertarians _do_ support  
> checks and balances by government. Every time I read a rebuttal to  
> libertarianism the example given involved someone using force directly or  
> through government intervention. Both of which are anathema to libertarians  
> (but not to statists). Invariably, the argument assumes that those dirty  
> capitalists will gain control of the government and subjugate everyone.

Well, this is certainly an extremist viewpoint.  But I think it
is quite valid to be concerned about what WOULD happen under
libertarian rule, and I am not convinced by the rhetoric I have
taken the time to be aware of that libertarians have any understanding
at all of the reasons for labor violence or how to combat it.

My very limited knowledge of history leads me to believe that most
western catpitalist democracies eventually developed socialist
structures to deal with labor issues and labor violence.  It may
be that these structures developed as a direct outgrowth of labor
violence in our early (american) history.  I do not KNOW this to
be the case, but it is something that concerns me, since it seems
quite possible that some aspects of libertarianism COULD result
in a return to varieties of labor unrest that just do not happen
anymore.


> This  
> seems to be some religious credo of the left since I have seen no proof that  
> this scenario is will happen under libertarianism.

PROOF of ANYTHING in arguments of this kind is almost impossible, so
people are left to believe mostly what they will to believe.


> There is proof that the  
>socialists utopias supported by the statists invariably wind up with a ruling  
> elite that does exactly what they say the libertarian will do.

This assertion contains truth, but is not absolutely true.  There is
NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER that socialist govts. do abuse their populace.
They do, and I am sure you could give many many examples of how.
It is not so clear to me that libertarianism does not just enable
abuses of another sort that are more palatable to the libertarian
philosophy.

I would say that both systems have valuable ideas and I am interested
in political philosophies that make some attempt to synthesize them.

doug
From: pattisan@midiline.la.ca.us (Patti Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: looking for a new country
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 10:25:28 PDT
Organization: MIDILine BBS - Altadena, CA - (818) 797-3285


godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:

> I'm looking for a new country to live in, and would welcome suggestions (plea
> not Iceland).  It has to be somewhere I can legally work and make enough to
> live comfortably and support a family.
> I have a PhD in particle physics and a 1st class hon degree in physics (from
> London University, England) but I've eliminated myself from future employment
> in research in my field.
> 
> Any suggestions
> 
> Laurence
> 
   How about Mexico???  Things are really changing there and the president is
trying to put some scientific packages together to help bring Mexico into the
21 st century and keep his people at home! Next would be Austraila or New 
Zealand.

 


Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Subject: Re: Libertarians, guns, etc. 
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:42:09 GMT

In article <BuMt53.5o5@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, 
pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson) writes:

>In article <fulton.716495198@silver> fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben 
>Fulton) writes:
>>I contribute money every chance I get to those who need
>>it.  I make no value judgments.
>
>        Why not?

It would seem to me that he holds no values himself, and wants to live in 
a world devoid of values.  We're on our way to such a world now.  May his 
life be long and tedious.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: stu5s33@bnr.ca (Robert Nychka)
Subject: Re: free market
Reply-To: stu5s33@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:13:20 GMT


exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) says...

> Exactly! I have just now got my Republican co-worker to admit that he 
> believes that "Some government regulation of the economy is necessary", so 
> that now we agree to disagree.  But what should a Libertarian say to my co-
> worker, besides "No, regulation isn't necessary" or "No, that always leads
> to government bureacratic controls, etc, etc"?  What is the strongest 
> argument against any kind of government regulation of business? 

It's MORALLY wrong for any group of people (elected or not) to tell 
an individual who they can and cannot trade with at the point of
a gun.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Robert Nychka                               | "The Universe has been           stu5s33@bnr.ca                              |  around for a long time, 
                                            |  it will stay around a 
                                            |  couple of days"
"My opinions belong to me, not my employer!"|     - John Holtzman
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free market stuff)
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:34:38 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In <1992Sep8.013546.24841@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> jdeutsch@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Jeffrey Deutsch) writes:

>	I think there's a bit of confusion here. This debate originated out
>of some people's belief *not* that Libertaria would *turn into* a mixed
>economy (which, presumably, would be evil - if not, where is the
>argument against libertarianism?), but rather that Libertaria would
>*itself* be evil - things like racial discrimination, poor people
>starving in the streets, (insert favorite nightmare here). 

That's where the debate originated, but it has now mutated into precisely 
those two separate, valid issues; the former more damning to Libertaria, IMO.
A Libertarian society would not be workable if it was not stable.

>	Of course, it is important to pay attention to the question
>of how easily a system can be changed by people in the future, so
>that you can either (1) change the currently existing system (if you
>are opposed to it) or (2) try to preserve the currently existing
>system if you are in favor of it, or plan how to best preserve the
>system you wish to help establish in the future if you are opposed
>to the status quo.

If a system of government is based on individual rights, and, through the
democratic process, it is decided that a 40% taxation rate is not a violation
of individual rights, is that a workable system?  A is A.

-- 
ben
fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
"Get the hell out of my way!" - John Galt
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:55:42 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <lapukhINN3g1@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
>From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
>Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has
>Date: 8 Sep 92 19:10:09 GMT

>In article 24841@gmuvax2.gmu.edu, jdeutsch@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Jeffrey Deutsch) writes:
>rving in the streets, (insert favorite nightmare here). 
>>       It is quite possible that people will turn a Libertaria into
>>a mixed economy. But that begs the question. The essential question
>>here is (and don't hold your breath until it's resolved to everyone's
>>satisfaction here): which is better, Libertaria or a mixed economy?
>>The system that works better is the system whose results better meet
>>whatever criteria you deem most important.

>How can you separate the eventual evolution of a system from the system itsself?
>I don't think you can. What the system will become is just as important
>as the starting state of the system. IMHO, it's more important.

You may be making an important point here, but if so, I don't know what it 
is. Does it all just come down to expediency in the end?  Isn't the notion 
of an economic right a moral concept?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:13:24 EDT
From: <AIY1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Religion and contemporary world Problems

This is the title of a dialogue that will be held on thursday 17 sept. 1992
at 7:30 PM, room 112 Kern.  The religions here mean Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam.  Refreshments and questions will be taken after each rep. talk.