HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 21:41:37 GMT

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
: 
: The problem I am trying to point out, ultimately, is that eliminating
: govt (perhaps just severely) is at best a questionable solution. The
: problem obviously has much deeper roots. Govt at least is somewhat
: answerable (in western democratic system), even if not perfectly so.
: Private corps. etc are much less answerable in general, the average
: citizen has little influence on the general course of private corps
: except in very proscribed ways (I am not saying that is bad, I am just
: pointing out the difference.)

I want private corporations and the individuals within them to be
answerable when they use fraud or steal from other people.  Here is an
experiment that anyone can do to see who is more answerable.  The next
time you are in a line at the grocery store or post office compare the
experience.  How are you treated if you complain?  Do this at any
governmental agency and any private company.  Who is more responsive?
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The World
	<BZS.93Jan8175219@world.std.com>
	<SLAGLE.93Jan9022251@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:46:59 GMT


The problem I am trying to point out, ultimately, is that eliminating
govt (perhaps just severely) is at best a questionable solution. The
problem obviously has much deeper roots. Govt at least is somewhat
answerable (in western democratic system), even if not perfectly so.
Private corps. etc are much less answerable in general, the average
citizen has little influence on the general course of private corps
except in very proscribed ways (I am not saying that is bad, I am just
pointing out the difference.)

I believe the problems we are having with the govt (e.g. huge deficit
spending) reflects a much deeper problem that will just come right
back, likely worse as much of the accountability will be turned off,
in a system like the libertarians propose. It's just an attempt to
paint over the problem by shifting certain services from the public to
the private sector and hoping that somehow this will make everything
better, the grass is always greener on the other side theory of
politics (however, in this case no one has been able to peer over the
fence, it's all just a wild guess at best.)

You can call the folks who run your public transport system "the
government", or you can call them "the public transport corp" but it's
not clear that changes much. If their will is malevolent and they are
determined to rip off the public etc then they will manage to do so
under either system (perhaps in different ways.)

The only thing that will stop the ruthless is people giving a damn.
And, harder, people giving up on the sort of cynicism we see so often
on these nets (and elsewhere of course), if you don't have a vision of
how things should be and instead focus on all the reasons they aren't,
you are doomed anyhow, changing the wrapper won't help.

If you want to make this country something again it's very simple:
Demand the truth, demand honesty, protect and defend those who have
the courage to give it to you against the cynical and manipulative.
Focus less on specific moralistic issues (that's just a distraction in
most cases) and simply and naively demand utter honesty, point out at
every opportunity that liars and twisters of the truth are the cowards
you know in your heart they are. The rest will take care of itself.

You'll never be 100% successful, the malevolent will always be working
in the shadows, but you just might change the balance of the equation
and put the crooks on the defensive. You might just end up with
something you want to be a part of.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3219 comp.org.eff.talk:8468 soc.culture.usa:9608 alt.activism:20205
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Consciousness as a primary.
Date: 8 Jan 1993 19:57:26 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan8.140740.2994@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>In fact, Objectivism, a relative of libertarianism, is a philisophical idea
>that relies only on objective proof.  Many Objectivists are libertarian.

Hahahahaha!  Looking to Objectivism for support for libertarianism is really
funny.

If you don't think so, please explain to me how consciousness is a primary
like existence.

Mike Huben

"... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make
themselves artificially stupid."  Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Netcom
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:04:04 GMT

In article <1ifapuINNc5j@network.ucsd.edu> triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.204229.847@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>>Originally posted by Stuart Reges <backpack@access.digex.com> on libernet:
>>	This post is long, but highly interesting.  It offers a hypothesis
>>on how libertarians reason about politics....
>>					Mark Sulkowski
>(lots of "computer programmers as the only ones who have a real
>grasp of how society works" stuff deleted)
>
>... Understanding human action (and, to the
>degree possible, predicting it) requires understanding culture,
>social structure, ideologies, all the complex and varied ways people
>in different societies/communities see and act on the world.
>"rationality" by itself ... won't get you very far in an analyses of
>society.

Who ever said that we should use only "rationality" BY ITSELF?  Who
said we should pay ABSOLUTELY NO REGARD to the other factors you cite?
Do Libertarians say this?  Or are you just making a black-and-white
interpretation of their philosophy?

I thought the whole point was that we should promote "rationality" to
a higher level of influence in government (perhaps the highest level
relative to other factors, in the Libertarian view).  I don't think we
are talking about an all-or-nothing game, except for academic analysis
of a hypothetical model.  Although Libertarians may sound like they
are shooting for this extreme model, I expect that they are willing to
make concessions when it comes down to making real choices in the real
world.  Any Libertarians wish to comment?

I think the bottom line of this philosophy is that the politicians,
and we the people, ought to start taking more responsibility for
cause-and-effect.  Surely you would agree that putting primary
emphasis on symptomatic treatment is wrong in health care, why not
agree that this is also true in the case of government?

That's my interpretation of the above-deleted post.  (If you want
to flame me, please let me know if you are disagreeing with the
philosophy, or the accuracy of my interpretation.)

Hans Lachman
lachman@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:32:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.133237.25879@samba.oit.unc.edu>
bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes: 
>[Text by Ervan Durnell describing book and metal plate deleted]
>
>	Ok, I do see where we diverge.  Lets assume that was not a book on
>your lawn but an unpublished manuscript.  that puts us in the context of
>no agreement.  I would tend to hold, that you have the right to use the
>paper (burn it, scrap paper, doggee litter...) but not to read the book. 
>Its my belief that intellectual property must not use possesion as an
>argument for ownership.  The intellectual analogy to ownership in
>intellectual property is ownership of the rights to the work, not a copy
>of the work.

I dunno about this Jeff.  Are you really saying that if I find an
unpublished manuscript in my front yard, I don't have the right to
read it.  Who have I harmed by reading it anyway?  The author?  I
would argue that my rights as a property owner outweigh her
intellectual rights as an author...

O.K., you ask, where would I draw the line?  I'd say I have the right
to read it, the right to lend it out to friends, the right to put
parts of it in my .sig, etc.  However, I _don't_ have the right to
publish it under my name.  That's the only clear instance I can think
of right now where her intellectual property rights outweigh my
physical property rights...  

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sals@random.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:01:09 GMT

In article <1is4ctINNcgu@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike  
Huben) writes:
> Let's list some other things that you (and most other people as well)  
did
> not agree to.  The ecology.  The banking system.  The system of  
property.
> Geography.  The language you use.  The list goes on and on.
The point of mine and others posts were that the consitution does not have  
a contractual basis. You apparently miss that point.
> 
> Actually, it is possible to justify governments in a purely libertarian
> manner simply by acknowledging another type of property.  We all know  
that it
> is possible (and quite common) to own property in a less than absolute  
sense.
> Properties have easements, they may have separate water, timber, oil,  
mineral,
> air, access, and other rights owned by others.
> 
> We can posit another explicit property right: territorial governance  
rights.
> There are numerous historical examples of these being bought and sold.
> For example, the Louisiana Purchase.  The property in Louisiana was not  
sold:
> rights to govern it were: that's why property owners were not  
disposessed by
> the purchase.
> 
> We can view the Constitution as a document cedeing some territorial  
governance
> rights of the states to the Federal government.
> 
> Thus, I see territorial governance as merely a type of property, much  
like
> an easement.  Disputing the distribution of this property is exactly as  
valid
> as disputing the distribution of any other property.
> 
> I will grant that such property might be as "wrong" as slavery.  But I  
will
> leave it to you to convince me why in terms that don't equally  
invalidate
> other property.
There is one crucial difference betweem territorial governance as a  
property right and other property rights. Property rights have evolved  
over many years are the result of legal (not necessarly governmental)  
conflicts principally through the common law. Your idea of territorial  
goverance as a property right is a construction you have made to justify  
the existence of government. Property rights evolve through people being  
able to capture some value then couldn't before, on the other hand  
territorial governance didn't. I also question how in your hypothesis didi  
the states receive the right to territorial governance in the first place?  
If they were given that right by people when the state was originally  
formed then all the arguments I have stated in my posts are equally valid  
against that notion as well.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:19:49 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan5.151520.20299@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>In article <1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>No, we don't see.  Because we can no more see libertarian governments than
>>we can see heaven.  You sound just like a communist promising the withering
>>away of the state, or a Christian promising heavenly rule, or a cargo-cultist
>>propitiating the great silver birds.
>
>Or a demopublican promising deficit reductions?

As a percentage of GNP, there have been major deficit reductions during the
Eisenhower and Carter administrations.

The USA has always had a national debt (excepting 1835-6).  The last balanced
budget passed was submitted by Lyndon Johnson-- that big-spending, Great
Society liberal.  :-)

Mike Huben

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
						George Santayana

"Those who misremember the past are pleased to repeat it as `proof'."
						Mike Huybensz
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:25:08 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1idc2tINNeg9@gap.caltech.edu> damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) writes:


|	Theory question: Assume that the fetus is a human being with full
|liberties.  Suppose that the woman bearing the fetus did not wish to be
|pregnant and does not wish to support it.  Does she have a right to 
|defend herself against the fetus's forcing her to support it?

Only if she bore no responsiblity for the fetus being in its current
predicament.

If I took a baseball bat and rendered you incapable of earning a living.
Would I bear some responsibility for supporting you, even if I do not wish
to assume this responsibility?
-- 
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: sals@deirdre.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:49:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.024553.15531@samba.oit.unc.edu>  
bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
> In article <1993Jan11.132106.24656@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  
bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan11.005426.11142@samba.oit.unc.edu>  
bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
> >>In article <10JAN199313422045@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu  
(Mr. Grinch) writes:
> >>>
> >>>You've heard of the "Civil War",  haven't you?  The citizens of
> >>>the Confederate States had never consented to be bound by the
> >>>Constitution in the first place,  their elected state legislators
> >>>explicitly rejected it,  yet it was forced on them anyway.
> >>>
> >>	No they did consent.  They latter breached the contract; or
> >>alternativly withdrew from it.  In either case their was original  
consent.
> >>
> >
> >*I* will agree that the Constitution *is* a social contract (at least
> >as long as the *government* also abides by it) . I think
> >however, that the Southern point of view in the pre-Civil war period  
was 
> >that the Consitution which they agreed to was not necessarily a  
*perpetual* 
> >contract.  I think they also believed that the government was exceeding  
the
> >intent of the original contract and had violated it, thereby
> >making it null and void. The real issue of the Civil War was
> >states rights IMHO. 
> >
> 	Agreed.  That's why I through in withdrew.  All I was arguing was
> that they originaly concented.  Besides, the contract doesn't contain an
> experation date, and in the preambe explicitly states that it is to
> continue on after the authourship is dead.  There is no way the south
> could argue it is not prepetual.
How did they orginally consent? All the people in the states did not  
consent to the consitution and although the consitution does say it will  
continue on perpertually it cannot bind people who did not consent to it  
unless the living can bind the dead.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: mrh@centerline.com's message of 4 Jan 1993 21:47:16 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:49:44

In article <1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

> If your family could have afforded to send you to an unsubsidized, top-notch
> college on the perhaps 20 to 30 percent of their income that is paid in taxes
> (never mind that some of that money would be needed to buy services that you
> currently receive from the government), then you clearly place yourself into
> the "frustrated children of the elite" class so clearly described.

Don't be obtuse.  If your family had put away 20 to 30 percent of their
income from the time of your birth they would have enough to send you
and several brothers and sisters to Harvard.  That's if they had made
even very conservative investments.  If, on the other hand, they had
made some astute stock picks with the money, they might now be in a
position to buy a small, but good quality, liberal arts college.  The
concept, for the "frustrated children" of the "impoverished" is known
as sacrificing in the present for future rewards.  Our government, with
its proclivity to inflate the currency combined with grand theft 
taxation, renders the strategy somewhat less effective.

> My parents were impoverished immigrants.  They, my sisters, and I could
> never have afforded our educations which propelled us into the middle class
> without substantial government loans and subsidies.

Lemme get my violin.

=Mark

--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk's message of 12 Jan 93 16:01:53 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<C0r0J5.6Hp@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:27:48

In article <C0r0J5.6Hp@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:

> [whether government or business is more answerable to the public]

>>Here is an experiment that anyone can do to see who is more
>>answerable.  The next time you are in a line at the grocery
>>store or post office compare the experience.  How are you
>>treated if you complain?  Do this at any governmental agency
>>and any private company.  Who is more responsive?

> Now, follow this experiment with a request to see the profit
> margins and salaries in the private corporation...

Why?  How will that information help you to decide where you'd
rather take your business?  I would have thought that price and
service would be sufficient to make that determination without
the necessity of attempting to decode the balance sheets.  Not
to mention the virtual impossibility of making valid comparisons
between the apples and oranges of public versus private accounting
practices.  Why do you care how much money they make if they are
able to deliver the best goods at the best prices?  Jealousy or
just idle curiosity?  Or maybe idle ideology?

Now on the other hand, profit levels will be of genuine interest
when contemplating an investment in an enterprise.  So tell me
how interested you are in "investing" more and more of your
money, and ours, in an enterprise that fails to operate within
its budget and fails to deliver promised services year in and
year out.  And that has rude and surly treatment thrown in as 
a bonus!  An investor's dream come true?

=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3214 comp.org.eff.talk:8467 alt.amateur-comp:538 soc.culture.usa:9607 alt.activism:20204