HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:50:28 GMT
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL

 It bears pointing out that corporations, themselves, are legal fictions 
supported within the governing framework of the states in which they do 
their business. The status of a corporation as a legal entity separate
and distinct from its owners would likely collapse absent support and
enforcement from government. Only proprietorships and partnerships, 
being property and responsibility directly connected to the individual,
could be sustained. Without government protection from personal liability,
any individual would be deemed responsible for their actions. Without
a government willing to let property be owned by imaginary entities, how
could such imaginary entities hold title to land or capital? For that 
matter, without a system of universally respected title, how might anyone
hold land or capital in absentia or without personal, or proxy,
counter-force? 
-- 
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons  #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta)
Subject: Re: Which brand(s) of anarchy?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:13:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.090707.29572@hellgate.utah.edu>, galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct3.212130.13228@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
|> >Do you imagine that there is no value in designing things? That
|> >understanding how to set up, finance and run a business is worthless?
|> >You can find millions of people who can lift heavy objects. How many
|> >people do you know who could do what Bill Gates has done?
|> 
|> Bill Gate bacame a billionaire by telling IBM he would get them an
|> operating system for their new PCs.  He then went to some people
|> who had written an operating system and bought it for $50,000.  For the
|> next 10 years, he became a billionaire letting the operating system
|> sell itself.  The only significant revision of the OS was MSDOS 5.0.
|> So, a bunch of creative people create something, and a shrewd business
|> man gets set for life.  A perfect example of how wonderful capitalism is.

	If it is so easy to become a billionaire, why haven't you?

	I know it is hard to do what Bill Gates has done and I admire him for it.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge)
Subject: Re: How @ at U?
Organization: Lever Industries
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:35:42 GMT

In article <DRW.92Sep21165112@euclid.mit.edu> drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
>In article <1992Sep18.005605.13010@lever.com> ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge) writes:
>   The fundamental anarchist act is to create a Direct Democracy (as
>   opposed to a Representative Democracy).
>
>   The whole of society does by the same method it makes any other
>   decisions Direct Democracy.
>
>But doesn't this leave the invidual under the "authority" or at least

Anarchy is the opposite of hierarchy. When you have a direct democracy there
is no hierarchy. That isn't to say thay you can do anything you want. People
who want to poison a stream are using up more than their fair share of the 
earths resources and would be stopped by society (I hope). The question is how
to decide what is fair.

I don't think that stopping someone from burning down my house is
authoritarian, even if all my friends have to beat someone who is intent on
doing it, it is just common sense. Authoritarianism is the leadership principle
as applied to its extreme; that we all need to be regimented to live a good
life.

I think that more thinking has to go into jurisdiction in decision making for
anarchists and libertarians. For instance is would seem proper that you
can't keep everyone up all night playing loud music (rock concert), and
everyone within earshot should have a say. If a special soundproofed building
was available it should just be the concern of those who are there for the
performance. Acid rain is an international concern. Radioactive waste is
intergenerational and most of those who will suffer it haven't even been born
yet. It isn't settled but the problem isn't insurrmountable.

>the power, of The Majority?  This may be a good way to run society,

This is the way real in the world anarchist movements have made decisions.
Of course it is still possilbe for the Majority to oppresee the majority.
That will allways be possilbe until the majority respects individual rights.
Hopefully a society that has fought for its freedom will not give it up
piece by piece. With solidarity it is possilbe to see that we are allways
in a minority at some time and in the majority in others; this would temper
any tendency to oppressing minorities. The idea is one of enlightened self
interest.
-- 
--
     Edward Elhauge       You will eat (you will eat), bye & bye (bye & bye)
    Lever Industries      In that glorious land above the sky (way up high)
      San Francisco       Work & pray (work & pray), live on hay, (live on hay)
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Monopolies
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:47:03 GMT

I wuz just thinking today that a recent laboratory experiment in
competition and monopolies has been done: the cable TV industry in the
US.  Now, I know that CATV systems are 'licensed monopolies', but the
interesting thing is that the licenses are all non-exclusive, as far
as I know -- another CATV company can get a license, wire the city,
and go into competition with the one already present.

CATV is a better test-bed than the other utilities, because due to
some legal quirk, the cities are not allowed to regulate the prices or
content of cable systems, so that once a company gets a license, it is
pretty much a free actor.

There is a reasonably high cost of entry, in that one has to install
all the wiring to start a cable system in a city, but the price seems
to be well below what one could raise on the capital markets.  Thus,
up-front investment doesn't seem to be a barrier to entry.

It may well be that political corruption prevents city governments
from issuing licenses to second CATV companies.  But I think that
there would be many complaints from CATV companies if they wanted to
be the second company in a city and were prevented from doing so.
I haven't heard any such complaints.

As far as I know, there are no cities in the US with more than one
CATV company.

Dale
From: danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:46:02 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <uoTVRB3w165w@netlink.cts.com>, tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry) writes:
|> danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
|> > threaten your rights.  These companies might be liable to lawsuits if there
|> > is negligence.  And a violation of your rights would mean that your security
|> > company would become involved to help your side in a dispute.  An independent
|> > court system would probably exist to mediate disputes like the one you mentio
|> > 
|> > 	    
|> 
|> That sounds like government to me.  Lawsuits?  Courts?  Keep following
|> that train of thought and you will wind up with a Bill of Rights!
|> The sarcasm here is intended to try to prod somebody into explaining
|> to me how an anarchic system can fulfill the functions of checks and
|> balances  that  the American style constitution uses to protect
|> people/property.
|> 
	It is nor government if it is private hands.  But the government does
provide many practical services suchas courts and police.  It seems as if people
will demand these service whether or not government existed.  If these were
provided by private companies, instead of the government, we would get a better 
quality of law and order that suits our own consumer tastes.  

	Randy Barnett of University of Illinois at Chicago Law School has
outlined a way an anarchic legal system might function in some of his papers. 
Essentially, you would hire companies to protect you as well as ones to represent
you legally.  In legal disputes with other individuals, your legal
representatives probably have deals with other law companies.  If there is a
dispute, there will be neutral private courts to arbitrate them.  Once decisions
are made, your police will enforce the decision (if you won).  The person who you
took to court will probably have his police company refuse to protect him if they
abide by the decisions of the neutral court.  Barnett speculated that the
recognition by many law and protection companies of certain private decisions
over time will resemble the way many banks eventually all agreed to be on the
same ATM systems.  

	The scheme is more complicated but that is as much as I can remember at
this moment without the paper in front of me.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Re: freedom
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:42:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.231924.23271@ultb.isc.rit.edu> entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>Material prosperity to our citizens?  A few weeks ago our local
>newspaper (Rochester, NY) reported the results of a nationwide
>study that showed Rochester (about 65th in population) was 13th
>in the proportion of children living in poverty--40 per cent.
>
>40 per cent of the children in this county are living in poverty!
>
>When the newspapers brought this to the attention of our county
>executive shrugged it off, and responded that it wasn't his
>responsibility to do anything about it--the heartless bastard.

That reminds me of another friendly person I met from Rochester --
my room-mate from my freshman year of college.  (an ROTC junior fascist)
He told me about how awful it was that he was "forced" to live and
go to school with all the lazy Black people, not to mention those
evil people from the projects who were so *poor*.  I asked him how
much people should have to earn to live in his neighborhood and go to
his white schools (not without a trace of sarcasm).  Unphased, he
replied, "oh, maybe $50000 per year would be adequate."

He must be related to that county executive.
From: ausman@ocf.berkeley.edu (James Ausman)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Date: 28 Sep 1992 22:55:32 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: hailstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep24.200356.10155@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>You forget that the people "upon whom they would be enforcing the law"
>would also have security companies working for them, which would get
>very very angry about having their clients killed. Checks and
>balances.
>
Sounds like gang warfare to me... The perfect libertarian utopia. Coming soon 
to a neighborhood near you!!!

Jim Ausman
-- 
	"You are not thinking.  You are merely being logical."
				-Niels Bohr to A. Einstein 
				(during their famous debates on QM)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:56:33 GMT

glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
>danny@athena.mit.edu  (Daniel A. LaGattuta) writes:
> 
>>Money can only buy what people are willing to sell.  Governments will
>>take anything they want.  This is an important distinction.
> 
>Suppose you have a sculpure that I want.  You will not sell said
>sculpure to me.   I pay a thief to steal your sculpture.  Money might
>be only able to buy what people are willing to sell, but it can
>get even those things that people are not willing to sell.  Surely
>you can't be so niave as to disagree with this.

I disagree. If someone pays a thief to steal your sculpture, your
security company will get angry with them. In all likelyhood, they
will end up in trouble.

The envisioned anarchocapitalist system has lots of feedback loops
that all encourage peaceful exchange of goods.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: black herring on econ
Date: 30 Sep 1992 16:59:16 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>The other is a social change of regarding drivers and hitch-hikers who
>attack each other as guilty of an especially disgusting betrayal instead
>of blaming the victim for being fool enough to trust a stranger.
 
Blaming...  sounds like you'd make an excellent clergy person.  ;)
How long is it going to take for us to get beyond this need to
blame?
 
And trusting is a good quality not a bad one, regardless of the
situation.  (I know, I have a martyr complex.)
 
The rest of what you said was quality stuff...
 
Glenn                         glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: freedom
Reply-To: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:24:49 GMT

My posting about the level of poverty among children in Rochester,
NY was not about a zero sum society, because I agree with
Perry Metzger that we do not live in one such.

The point I was trying to make was that, depending upon what
data is looked at and how it is looked at, that we have a
casuality rate of 20 to 33 per cent of our citizens--they never
make it to full functioning adulthood.  And, IMO, that is way
too high.  We as a society are throwing away a lot of lives.
I am told American troops will not stay in the line with a
casualty rate over 25%.  Whatever our goal is as a society--even
granting that it's the most benefit (Iand I think material
benefit is what's meant) for the most people--we are paying
a terrible human cost.

With regard to Government being responsible for most of our
ills, I cannot agree.  I know that the rate of alcoholism in
our country jumped 25% from 1971 to 1981--I'm sorry, I don't
have current figures.  I find it hard to place the responsibility
for that at the feet of the Government.

Erik Timmerman
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: Deep South Anti-Columbus Anarchist Gathering
Reply-To: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:35:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.162628.16080@athena.mit.edu>, danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
>
>	Columbus was not an anarchist but Columbus did some good that an
>anarchist can appreciate.  The Spanish Conquistadors destroyed the Aztec and
>Incan Empires which were also imperialistic.  He also opened up the New World to
>colonization so that people could escape from tyrannical societies in the Old
>World.  
>
>					Daniel A. LaGattuta

Colunbus is also credited with discrediting the "Flat Earth" hypothesis.
Everyone has some kind of redeeming value.


Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: warfare
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:56:15 GMT

drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.194540.9724@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>   When I state that "War is unprofitable", I mean to say that in
>   general, if you are depending on payments from customers rather than
>   coercively extracted taxes to fund your operations, [etc.]
>
>Well, yes.  But the question isn't "Will a society organized according
>to principle X engage in war?" but "Will a society organized according
>to principle X be able to resist being destroyed in a war?"  You can
>take it for granted that arbitrarily nasty peoples, states, and
>strongmen will come along occasionally.  If one of them can figure out
>how to make war a paying proposition, you can be assured that its
>empire will grow until it runs into a society capable of resisting
>their expansion.  That fact that a voluntarist society can't figure
>out how to make war profitable won't stop it from being preyed upon by
>societies which can.

Of course you are right -- outsiders will always try to attack you in
an effort to steal what you have if it looks like they have a chance
of succeeding. The question is, can we come up with ways to provide a
defense that is effective against such threats even within a
voluntarist structure. The answer is, by my reckoning, that cross
agreements between security companies provide a large fraction of the
answer. Remember that, from a contract point of view, you don't care
if its a small street gang or an organized military operation
attacking your home -- you signed a contract with a company to provide
you with security, and you expect them to fulfill their oblgations.
The difference is just one of scale. Through creative mutual
reinsurance agreements, it should be possible for security agencies to
create a structure that is capable of responding effectively to mass
threats that would overwhelm a single agency. My expectation is that
because of the constraints of the market that security agencies would
come up with techniques that would make them, if anything, more
effective per dollar spent than government based defense systems.

By the way, Vernor Vinge's short story "The Ungoverned" in his
collection "True Names and Other Dangers" deals directly with this
whole question of mass defense by voluntarist organizations in the
face of an espansionist statist threat.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 06:13:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.040346.21580@vela.acs.oakland.edu> wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
>Sorry about the null post, I naively assumed the editor/newsreader symbiont
>had the policy of posting the buffer that happens to be in your face.
>Sure it happens to the best of 'em.
>
>In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct3004501@caisr1.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>>
>
[other questions and answers deleted]
>
>The only reason it exists is because all business transactions are based on
>the assumption that the other party is screwing you over.  Look at the
>language of any piece of pushed paper... invoice, bill of lading, packing
>list, bank cheque
>etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
>No short changing, CYA, embezzlement, hierarchy etc. = no paperwork
>
Speaking from experience, I think that even people of good will need 
paperwork for complex projects--otherwise it's too hard to remember
what's been promised and what's been done. 

I could easily believe that people who aren't trying to rip each other
off would generate much less paperwork, though. 

[more questions and answers deleted]

                                   Nancy Lebovitz
                                   calligraphic button catalogue
                                       available by email  (170K)
                                   nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu

Someday I'm going to get my own red tape and tie up the Establishment 
for a change!

Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Date: 28 Sep 92 09:53:47 MDT
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy 
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: world 

In article <1992Sep28.144607.13489@athena.mit.edu> danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
>	Finally, you seem to have this attitude that rich people will just want
>to abuse poor people.  I see no evidence of this from people I know.  Rich people
>want the same things the poor want.  Except they have more money.

Oh come on...  We are living in a time when it is illegal for rich people to abuse 
kill poor people.  Take a look at the late 1800's if you want to see what rich
people do in a laisez-faire society.

Here's the scenario:  A bunch of workers decide that they are being paid too little,
so they complain to their boss.  The company fires them and hires some other people.
The fired workers have a picket line outside of the factory, telling people not to
buy things from the company.  The company does not want the people to be there, so 
they call a "security company".  My bet is the protesters get shot and clubbed to
death.  And if they are resourceful enough, they might have a "security company" 
also, in which case it erupts into a street battle with the workers getting killed
with the rich staying fat.  Your system WILL create class war, you are just hoping
that you will be on the winning side.
----
"Dwayne Dibly?!" - The Cat (I've seen 5th season.  Have you?)
----
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard)
Subject: OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 16:51:22 GMT

Dear members of the libertarian left,
Now that we've been exposed to countless arguments in favor of the libertarian
right, maybe it's time to ask some crucial questions?


Why do you oppose the state?
Why don't you support the capitalist class and its system of domination?
Why do you think that a stateless society is preferable?
Do you see anything wrong with the logic of having a society based on
the wages system, commodity production for profit, and capital, which
is also stateless?
Can you envision a society of diverse classes without a state?
Can you envision a society where what used to be known as capital is 
owned a shared cooperatively by the people as a whole?
Why do you insist on siding with the oppressed against their oppressors?
Why can't you accept injustice?
What is wrong with the concept that my freedom is based on your unfreedom;
my wealth is based on your exploitation; my power is based on your oppression?

-- 
Mike Ballard 
Time is money. Steal some today!
Don't just complain, organize! e-mail iww@igc.org  Ph: (415)863-WOBS.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Yet more on PPL systems
From: haney@husc8.harvard.edu (James Haney)
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:39:57
 6@euclid.mit.edu><1992Oct5.163450.16520@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: danny@athena.mit.edu's message of Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:34:50 GMT

danny@athena.mit.edu says: 

>...  What I said was that societies with less government are richer,
>ceteris paribus, than those with more government.  In the long run,
>even given wider disparities of wealth, a higher rate of economic
>growth would make everyone richer.  
> 
>	Actually, Western society became more deregulated after the
>Renaissance, during the 19th century age of Laissez-Faire.  Since
>then, things have become more regulated again.  
> 

An interesting sidenote:  the "19th century age of Laissez-Faire" actually
served to strengthen the power of government, making possible the 20th cen-
tury age of Regulation.  For example, the British tariff reductions in the
early 1800s reduced the size of the black market, bringing a larger portion 
of Great Britain's economy under government control and scrutiny.

Food for Thought.

James Haney
haney@husc.harvard.edu