HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:28:33 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang) writes:

>My question is:

>What does feminism have to teach libertarians?  Some vague notions of
>``equality''?  What is ``equality''; does it mean the use of
>government to enforce some level of equalness?  Sounds very
>authoritarian-socialist to me.

Since many libertarians have nothing against private discrimination,
that doesn't really surprise me.

>On the other hand, if feminists are simply trying to let everybody
>have an equal playing field where everybody's rights are protected,
>then why do they call themselves FEMINists?  Why not support equal
>rights for everybody; why not just be an INDIVIDUAList or
>EVERYBODYist?

Because different kinds of discrimination generally have different
causes, symptoms, and effects.  Trying to be an everybodyist would
spread you too thin (if you were to try to actually do something
about it).  And there is the question of perception: some people
think racism is a problem of the past and need no longer be
addressed, some people think sexism no longer affects people's
educational and job opportunities.  So calling yourself a
feminist means that you still think there's a problem to be
solved, and (sometimes) that you're willing to try to do something
about it.

>Why be so fickle and only support the female cause?
>What type of integrity is that, where one waxes eloquent about
>fairness -- but only specificalaly for females?  After all, we'd like
>everybody to have a fair shake, but some groups deserve to have a
>fairer shake than others, right?

More effort needs to be spent on some problems than others, right?
We can't do everything, so we introduce priorities.  You seem to
feel that increasing opportunities for women is a very low
priority; others feel differently.

>If that's what feminism is, then call me a proud very-anti-feminist
>libertarian.

But if it isn't, should we just call you an over-generalizer?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Discord, the Goddess of the Net, was developing a taste for blood sacrifice.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:38:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.193628.8981@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
}According to starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr):
}{ Lectures me on the fine distinctions between a democracy and a constitutional
}  republic, and warns me of the dangers of the dictatorship of the majority. }
}
}Yes, yes, I know.  But the answer to this (in fact the only answer yet found
}to be the slightest bit workable) is to put consitutional restrictions on the
}power of the government in such a way that no matter who is in office, they
}cannot constitutionally infringe on protected liberties.

Studies show that the longer an incumbency, the greater the likelihood that
the incumbent will infringe upon rights and liberties.  Term limits are one
way to protect against that.

}Again, term-limits might seem like a nifty idea for any number of reasons, but
}what it is _not_ is a libertarian proposal.  It is another governmental
}infringement on the ability of people to choose their representatives.

It's a restriction of the power of the American Empire, which is sorely
in need of restriction.

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,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,utah.general
Subject: Re: Libertarian enclaves overseas? 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:24:40 +0000

In article <1gla0rINNni8@menudo.uh.edu> mece3d@uh.jetson.edu writes:

How about Jersey (one of the Channel Islands)?

>Some criteria would include:
>
>1.  Population - the smaller the better, with a few million at most.

It's not that high - I think around 100,000

>2.  Infrastructure - should have a well-developed communication and
>     transportation system, and a fairly well-educated populace that
>speaks
>     English, if possible.

Speak English and French fluently, and they seem pretty well educated.

>3.  Immigration Policy - it should be possible for an outsider to become
>a
>     citizen or set up in the country fairly easily.

Certainly set up on the island, I don't know what the citizenship rules
are...

>4.  Political Freedom - should have a fairly stable democratic government.

Pretty good.  I haven't heard of them being at all *un*stable.  And
they're at least as democratic as England (OK, that's not saying much
<g>)...  The small population means that there's a lot shorter path
between government and people.

>5.  Economic Freedom - should be as few restrictions on business as
>possible.

Like, no personal taxes to speak of, free change between Pounds
(equivalent to Pounds Stirling, but not identical - they print them
themselves) and at least French Francs.  Most shops etc.  will take
other currencies - dollars, marks, guilders...

There are some restrictions on business, mainly on 'ecological' grounds
(i.e. they don't want the place messed up for the tourist trade).

>6.  Money Policy - should be possible to trade foreign currency easily.

Oops, just answered that one!

>7.  Gun laws - is it possible to legally own a gun in the country?

Er, no.  But 6 out of 7 ain't bad...

8.  It's on an island, and is effectively its own state (there are
historical ties to England, but very little if any control ties).

Thinking about it, why don't I move there?  Hmm, the telephone charges
are more because all the calls I'd want to make would be
'international'.  Oh, well, can't win 'em all...

BTW, Chris, you seem to be having some trouble with quotes - they come
out as U and j on my system.  If you want to email me with the hex codes
of what you use for quotes, and what system you're on etc. I'll try and
trace the problem...

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:2899 alt.politics.clinton:19048 alt.politics.bush:14876
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:35:28 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <BzM8BL.DCx@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
}hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang) writes:
}
}>My question is:
}
}>What does feminism have to teach libertarians?  Some vague notions of
}>``equality''?  What is ``equality''; does it mean the use of
}>government to enforce some level of equalness?  Sounds very
}>authoritarian-socialist to me.
}
}Since many libertarians have nothing against private discrimination,
}that doesn't really surprise me.

Whoa, there.  Make sure you note that many libertarians also think that
prejudice is a vice.  We have something against it; we think it's misconduct,
but we oppose vice laws.

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
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:25:44 GMT

In article <1gta5hINNpr6@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>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:
>
>>>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.

so what? there are times to stuff one's mattress and times not to. 1970 to
1982 was definitely a time to do so. *you* made the claim that mattress
stuffing was archaic -- i say it is not, as it happened not long ago. and
it is happening again now, anyway.

>>>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.

i am not sure what you mean. i said that there are advantages to not
being on a gold standard, however, there are also responsibilities
that go along with removing the 'cuffs. and the US has shirked its.

>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.

that's my only point. people are only suggesting that gold is a "wonderful
standard" because the monetary restrictions it imposes are less burdonsome
than the disaster our unchecked money monster is leading us into. OK?

>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.

how so? are you also considering those countries which have experienced
hyperinflation? are you considering the possibility that these countries
may have had no bloody choice in the matter?

--
charles
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:11:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1h79gvINN3of@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

|In article <78160@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM
|(Mark Wilson) writes [about term limits]:
|>That is why I have concluded that the best solution is to give each and
|>everyone of them the boot before they have a chance to get to comfortable.

|If you think politicians can't "get comfortable" in less than 8 or 12 years,
|why should we take anything else you say seriously?

Getting a little touchy are we.  It's all relative Mike.
You might want to put a little less rum in the egg nog before you post again.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:58:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.230012.4363@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.140943.24362@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>
>}Why in your opinion are laws against assualt (in the legal sense of the word,
>}meaning being threatend) ligitimate?  Then apply this reasoning to
>}repeated sexual advances.  This first one is ok, after that what's the
>}point, the woman has already said, "no".  The point may not be to get a
>}date, but to intimidate...  Very much like assault.
>
>Laws against assault are fine.  I merely contend that "sexual harassment"
>laws aren't in this category.
>
>Apply this reasoning to flipping a woman off.  Then the first one would be
>fine, but if she objects after that, then you're guilty of assault?!?  I
>don't buy it.
>
>I don't see the assault involved in propositioning a woman, either.
>

	I don't know what "flipping off" means, sounds like to make
someone angry so I'm going to assume so and go on that (probably a local
expression).  You never addressed the central issue: do you really believe
that the catagory of actions described as Sexual Harrasment is just an
immature person trying to get a dat; or instead a method of intimadating
woman?  It comes down to this point.  Intimidation is not a vice, its a crime.

>}Not really, ask the question this way.  Did the woman make it clear to you
>}that the sexual advance was unwelcome?  Did you continue to do it
>}regardless of her objections.  This is pretty clearly a very factual
>}crime.  
>
>"Did the woman make it clear to you that flipping her off was unwelcome?  Did
>you continue to do it regardless of her objections?"  This isn't a crime,
>it's a vice.
>

See above.

>}>}Rape is very different from most types of assault.  Assult is generally
>}>}directed against an individual, while rape is a crime directed against a
>}>}group.  Its the difference between murder and genocide.
>}>
>}>I'm not persuaded of this.  Individuals are always the victims.  In some
>}>cases, the motive may be hatred of all women, but in others it may be
>}>hatred of the particular victim.
>}>
>}
>}Well the group of individuals that this tends to happen to see it as a
>}crime against their group rather than against themselves as individuals. 
>}Most crimologists agree.  Commonly rape is directed at strangers.  
>
>Motivation for rape is now determined by what the victims believe?  Why
>not extend this to all crimes!  Why bother trying to prove mens rea, that
>the offender had a guilty mind, and intended harm!  Just ask the victim
>what she believes!
>

Note I said that crimonologists agree.  so for that matter do ex-rapists,
current rapists, people who exclusivly treat rapists; and everyone who has
investigated this issue.  Do you really think its about sex?

>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

--JMB



Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:28:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.204932.5375@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>Joh Haas -  I've deleted the discussion because most everyone knows the
>major points of contention.  To sumarize:
>
>1)  I think we should use oil because it has an intrinsic value.  You
>think we should use gold because its portable, and we would have rely
>on commodities (a problem if a crash came).  I continue to contend that if
>the crash came it really wouldn't matter if you had gold or dollars they
>both be equally worthless.

refer to my previous post. the above makes 0 sense because the value
of real, intrinsic items like gold goes up when the value of paper goes
down, as it does during a crash. the usefulness of gold as a commodity
of exchange has been sufficiently refuted. if you can't take it with you,
it's no good. simple as that.

>2)  You still haven't responded
>to a strong counterpoint though:  Do you honestly think all the gold in
>the world is worth more than all of the US currency in circulation?

probably, but i don't see what the point is. it doesn't matter how much
there is in the world, but rather how much the US gov't owns to do
market transactions with to maintain the standard.

>3)  Regarding the likelyhood of a crash, you argued that a default on the
>deficit was likely to occur, and would lead to the crash.  I disagree with
>both points.  First, I don't think we'll default, it goes to far against
>the protestant work ethic .....  stuff our leaders out into.  

read "Bankruptcy 1995". blind faith like the above is what got us into
this mess. it will eventually reach the point where they will have no
choice.

>	Second, even if we did default that would simply ake it very
>difficult if not impossible for the country to borrow.  Do you really
>think that this would lead to the end of our culture.  You mentioned riots
>do to people's savings.  Most people's savings is in their home, not in
>the bond market.  Their pensions might get killed, but corporate bonds
>would retain their value. 

get serious!
corporations are as much in debt as persons and the government. corporate
bonds are as good as the ability of the corporation to repay, which it can't
do while losing money, which is what happens in a depression.
why do you think the pensions would get killed anyway?

as to how bad the social unrest will be *when* the crash occurs, who knows?
it might not be that bad. but it would be foolish not to consider the
possibility.


>4)  Finally, there is a question of who wants large of gold.  If someone
>did don't you think that South Africa would have sold them all they wanted?

silly.
first of all, production is limited because the gold isn't lying around,
it has to be mined. more importantly though, supply and demand states
that if they flooded the market, they would get less, so it is not
in their best interest. also, they would sell more when prices were high
if they had the choice.

--
charles
From: aa396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill Henley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Libertarians as villains
Date: 24 Dec 1992 19:40:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


The Libertarian Party may not have made much headway in this
year's election, but its ideas seem to be gradually penetrating
public consciousness, judging by one slightly perverse signpost;
I'm starting to see more cases where opponents of freedom find it
worth the trouble to denounce libertarians and libertarianism by
name.  (Used to be if libertarians were noticed at all they were
regarded as harmless cranks.)  

There was the column by George Will (the only newspaper columnist
I know of to support the explicit repeal of part of the Bill of
Rights) bashing Andre Marrou and yearning for the days of 
"serious" third party candidates like Socialist Norman Thomas
instead of the Libertarians.  An earlier posting on this board
reported an anti-Libertarian political cartoon satirizing Marrou.

And locally where I live, a letter to the editor in the Cleveland
FREE TIMES, from a member of a mass-transit lobbying group, com-
plains that "the naysayers among us, led by the know-it-all
Libertarians, are trying to keep us chained to our cars."  
(Obviously it would be much better for all the rest of us to be
chained to the expanded mass-transit boondoggle he wants to
build with our tax money.)

Just out of curiosity, can anyone else report instances where
libertarians and libertarian ideas, explicitly identified as
such, have come in for criticism and attack in the mass media?

-- 
Bill Henley, Assistant Sysop, Cleveland Free-Net Science Fiction
& Fantasy SIG (aa396)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 06:33:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.200743.14092@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>>>bright@unlv.edu (Paul Conte) writes:
>>>
>>>>IF this ever happened, and currency became a private enterprise, would
>>>>not the printing of more or less money STILL have an affect on the
>>>>value of what I own?
>
>>>Today you nearly demand that everybody be able to print money and that
>>>we should all carry hunks of gold around.  Okay let's take the big step
>>>backward and imagine that has happened.
>
>>nice story, but not relevant, unfortunately.
>>i don't think anyone is suggesting that we carry around sticks of gold
>>and pencil sharpeners so we can shave off an apple's worth of gold
>>at the grocery store.
>
>Charles: Nice reply but not to what anybody was discussing <g>
>
>What was being suggested was that "anybody" could print money and that
>people would trade in whoever's currency they decided to invest in.

ok. sorry, i guess i miss the point here. elaborate if you wish
or i'll just drop it because i've obviously missed something.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian