HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re:  FAA
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:50:59 GMT

From article <1992Jul22.184357.3963@ncsu.edu>, by slblake@eos.ncsu.edu (STEVEN L BLAKE):
> 
>   I'd be interested in hearing some reponses on the following issue regarding
> federal government regulation of airline operations (FAA, NTSB):
> 
>   Let me state what I think would be a typical libertarian response:
> 
>   An airline would have an economic incentive (danger of multi-million
> dollar lawsuits)  to not have crashes; therefore, in a libertarian
> society, airlines would be compelled by economics to operate as safely
> as possible.  Regulation of their mistakes would occur after-the-crash
> through the court system.

Your answer is partly correct.

But, regulation of mistakes would NOT be limited to after-crash.

Let us suppose all airports and all airlines and all insurance companies
are private companies.

Airports and airlines are all at risk to be sued after a crash, so they
would like to buy insurance to protect themselves.

So, they talk to various insurance companies to get prices.

The various insurance companies give prices but require some sort of safety
inspections, a limit on how many hours a worker can work, what kind of
training a pilot needs, etc.  If a company violates the insurance company
regulations, it will lose its insurance.

Historically, that is how fire codes were created.  Insurance companies
required building owners to put in sprinkler systems and fire escapes.
It is also how fire fighting companies were created.  Insurance companies
lowered premiums if a building owner hired a local fire company to come to
put out fires.

So, to keep insurance, airlines have to comply with insurance company
regulations.  They can advertize their safety record.  Consumers can choose
from many airlines.

Private regulation encourages safety and protects customers before the
crash.

It is important that all these companies be private.
When a govt. owns an airport, it is not very safe because it cannot be sued
so it doesn't need insurance and it has less incentive to be safe.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is often stated (and certainly true) that the poor have no right
to the wealth of the rich.  It is seldom stated (but equally true)
that the rich have no right to the wealth of the poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:147 alt.politics.elections:9033
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord in '92!
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:46:03 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Jul23.152708.14105@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu writes:


> THis selling off of gov't industry was the key plank of Margaret
> Thatcher's cure for the UK.  We all can see how well it has worked
> there.......NOT.    People just made alot of profit on the
> privatizing of industry but can't say it has helped the UK
> become a stronger, industrial country.  Hey, Jaguar is now
> owned by some American company, so much for Buying British cars
> for Princess Di.  Seriously, privatization theories are usually
> just that -- theories, and dont usually do what all their
> proponents like Thatcher would claim.  


Selling government assets was part two.  Part one was cutting 
government spending to levels below revenue.  Marrou is just as
detailed about that.

When they freed prices in the Soviet Ex-Union, they shot up.  The 
blame lies not with free-markets and capitalism, but with the fact
that the government *didn't* free up production.

thant
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:01:46 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

In article <16833D8FE.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
> 
>I do not say you approve of fraud, just that your proposals make it
>easier to carry out and harder to detect.  The regulations create a
>common set of standards the builder must meet.  Without them, you could
>have hundreds of inspectors, each with his own criteria.  As a
>non-expert, I would not know which set of criteria to choose.  Now, I
>know the structure has at least passed the minimum standards set by the
>building code.
	That is why an independent consumer group, similar to Consumer
Reports (How I *love* CR) would form to establish standards.  Then the
inspector can say, this house meets House Inspection Association Standard
A.  It doesn't meet Standard AA, though and from this fact the HIA has
determined that you have a 5% greater chance of having a fire. (Something
like that...) Then you can decide if you want to buy the house.

-- 
Sameer_Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
PFA related mail to pfa@ddsw1.MCS.COM   | Specialization is for insects
Anonymous mail to ap.2363@cupid.sai.com |   - Robert A. Heinlein
Wed Jul 29 23:29:47 1992 US Debt: $4,001,726,448,289 Per capita: $15,687
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: privitization (was Re: Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord in '92!)
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:26:09 GMT
	<1992Jul23.152708.14105@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
   THis selling off of gov't industry was the key plank of Margaret
   Thatcher's cure for the UK.  We all can see how well it has worked
   there.......NOT.    People just made alot of profit on the
   privatizing of industry but can't say it has helped the UK
   become a stronger, industrial country.  

Do you have a model for what went wrong?

One story I've heard is that when the buses stopped being subsidized,
it took a few months for the market to sort itself out, and then there
was a bus system with fewer routes and higher rates.  This seems
reasonable from a libertarian point of view if the routes that were
dropped were losing money before the privitization, and if the new bus
rate was less than the sum of the old bus rate and the subsidy.

For things to get better after privatization, taxes have to go down
instead of having the government simply find different useless
projects to use the tax money on.  Did that happen?

One big problem with the UK is that it is too unionized.  With too
much legally entrenched groups who oppose changes to the status quo,
you can't have progress.  Did Thatcher change the legal status of the
unions?
--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Subject: Re: Libertarian paraphenalia
Organization: (none)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:41:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.172302.17763@ncsu.edu> slblake@eos.ncsu.edu (STEVEN L BLAKE) writes:
>
>
>  Where can I get ahold of Libertarian Party/Marrou bumper stickers, campaign
>buttons, etc?
>
>  These could be a great way of spreading the word.
>


Call:
	(202) 546-6095.

or write to:

	Marrou/Lord Campaign HQ 
	1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, 
	Washington, DC 20003

These items are for sale.  I think you can order by phone.
Or you can shove some money in an envelope with a note asking 
them to send you whatever it buys.  

(I don't recall prices, but $25 bought me a big stack of brochures,
a small stack of bumper stickers, and a few buttons.)

Remember TANSTAAFBS (There ain't no such thing as a free bumper sticker)?

For free stuff about the LP, membership info, principles, etc.,
call 800-682-1776.


bam@bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)     /|\Master of the Tripods of Hephaestus./|\  
[My opinions are my property, belong to me only, and represent no one else!]
# include discaimers.h            /***** Marrou/Lord in '92 *****/
# delete BUSHLIPS                 /***** CALL 800-682-1776  *****/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Nomination for LP Mascot 
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:58:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.000715.19211@microsoft.com> chrispi@microsoft.com (Chris Pirih) writes:
>;>> Do the Libertarians have a mascot?  Is anybody using the
>;>> bull moose?

How about the "Don't tread on me" copperhead?

                                Nancy Lebovitz
                                  calligraphic button catalogue available
                                        by email
                                nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu

Government is the great fiction whereby everyone endeavors to live at the
expense of everyone else.

>;>> -- 
>;>I hereby nominate the turtle for the position of LP Mascot.  Why? because
>;>a turtle only makes progress when it sticks its neck out.  :)
>;(many ideas deleted)
>;
>;Actually, the PORCUPINE still makes some sense (tho not to ecologists,
>;because they can do a lot of tree damage).
>
>Eagle.  Freedom, independence, clear (fore)sight, strength,
>patriotic overtones, near extinction.  Seems perfectly
>appropriate to me.
>
>---
>chris


Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:260 alt.individualism:4686
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Nomination for LP Mascot
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:44:32 GMT

In <1992Jul26.183042.21231@cas.org> gag65@cas.org wrote:
> Here's another vote for the "Don't Tread On Me" Copperhead for LP Mascot.

Yup.  This banner is already an unofficial mascot used by many libertarians.
Two friends of mine made their own statement by flying it on Flag Day.
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:256 sci.energy:3744 sci.physics.fusion:1859
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Monopolies and Public Utilities
Summary: Vote Libertarian to help open up the energy industry
Keywords: LP Libertarians Platform
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:28:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Jul28.102838.26270
Distribution: usa
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <1992Jul27.054445.12125@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>...He said that you
>can buy a generator from Caterpiller which will generate electricity with
>less polution and less cost per kilowatt-hour than a centralized coal-fired
>plant could.  Moreover the MTBF is such that your grandchildren will still
>be running it.
>
>With the existance of such generators, it is impossible for privatized 
>utilities to form oppressive monopolies.

In addition, large plants run by competitors could be hooked into the 
power grid and sell power several states over, since "transport" costs of 
electricity are low.  This requires open access of producers to the power 
grid, just as phone deregulation gave open access for long-distance companies 
to the Baby Bell customers.  This would be a hallmark of Libertarian 
energy policy.

I would also add to small diesel generators several "climate freindly" 
options for decentralized energy, should global warming become a problem:

* Biofuels would take as much greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere as
they return.

* Solar power, primarily developed in the private sector despite massive
government "investment" in energy tech in general, has been rapidly
coming down in costs, and will soon be a competitive decentralized
source in many areas of the country.  It is already being used for
satellites, boats, campers, lodges, etc.

* Many nuclear options in both fission and fusion could, with 
deregulation, be fully explored in the private sector instead of being
supressed in the public sector.  This is admittedly a trickier deregulation 
problem, but quite worthwhile looking into.  As a starting point, 
hundreds of small research fission reactors have operated safely on
college campuses across the country, and we have extensive experience
with decentralized nuclear technology in hospitals.  These might make 
good models for decentralized nuclear power safety.

The government will continue to fund hyper-centralized programs like
hot fusion, and use that _political_ power to supress the many 
decentralized options, if we don't move towards a Libertarian program.
We will continue to have government-regulated monopolies "serving"
our power needs if we don't move towards a Libertarian program.
You can send a clear, strong message of change this fall by voting 
Libertarian.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:178 alt.politics.elections:9139
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:17:03 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <1992Jul24.174409.28165@ornl.gov>
de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
 
>In article <1992Jul24.110504.28326@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>>* A caller asked Marrou how he would tackle the homeless problem.
>>  Marrou said the problem was caused by zoning, restrictive
>>  electric/plumbing codes, and other regulations that are designed for
>>  the middle class and drive up the cost of housing beyond what the poor
>>  can afford.  If home builders were free from regulation, they
>>  could build affordable housing and homelessness would be greatly
>>  reduced.
>
>Sounds like snake oil, to me.  Those pesky codes aren't designed to drive up
>the cost of housing, they're there to ensure safety.  Should people be allowed
                                                       ========================
>to live in unsafe housing just because they can't afford safety features?  The
 =========================================================================
>homeless problem isn't lack of affordable housing, it's an excess of jobless,
>poor, addicted, and mentally or physically ill people.  Shaving 10, 20, or even
>30% off the cost of construction won't solve the homeless problem.
>
>--
>Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
 
This is exactly what the Libertarians propose.  In the interests of
personal freedom, they believe each poor person should be allowed to
decide for himself whether he would rather have an unsafe house than
no house at all.  Safety codes and inspections are all that keep the
benevolent builders from unleashing a veritable flood of truly
affordable housing.  This flood would sweep all the homeless off the
streets, create zillions of new jobs, cure aids, oust Saddam Hussein,
... OOPS!  Got carried away by a rush of Libertarian rhetoric there.
If a few thousand people die in buildings that burn down because of bad
wiring, well, these folks have to pay the consequences for choosing to
live in unsafe housing, now don't they?
 
Libertarians usually fail to follow their proposals to their logical
conclusions.  They really believe their own propaganda, and that all
would be right with the world if their proposals were enacted.  There
is no point in arguing with the true believers.  They start from a
totally different set of premises, so logical arguments are wasted on
them.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Subject: Re: privitization
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 22:43:18 GMT


In article <1992Jul27.104017.14219@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu writes:

> My point was that this suposed cure from the LIberatarians is
> just a theory and one that might sound good but really would just
> serve to make specualtors money and not produce any goods.  THat
> also sound reminiscent of the 1980s in the US.

The speculation you are talking about was caused mainly by 
government subsidized, taxpayer backed Federal Savings and 
Loan Insurance.  Definitely *NOT* libertarian.  Maybe you
should learn what libertarian theory really is before you
start blaming things on it.

thant
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism
From: chrispi@microsoft.com (Chris Pirih)
Subject: Re: Nomination for LP Mascot 
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:07:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

;>> Do the Libertarians have a mascot?  Is anybody using the
;>> bull moose?
;>> -- 
;>I hereby nominate the turtle for the position of LP Mascot.  Why? because
;>a turtle only makes progress when it sticks its neck out.  :)
;(many ideas deleted)
;
;Actually, the PORCUPINE still makes some sense (tho not to ecologists,
;because they can do a lot of tree damage).

Eagle.  Freedom, independence, clear (fore)sight, strength,
patriotic overtones, near extinction.  Seems perfectly
appropriate to me.

---
chris
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: What is Marrou's position on research and space exp?
Keywords: Marrou, policy, space
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:28:03 GMT

>What exactly IS a Libertarian?  If I knew, I might be one.  Then again,
>I might say the same for Fascism.  Would a Libertarian be someone in
>favor of a pornographic magazine featuring scantily-clad neo-nazi blondes
>in brown-shirts entitled "Fashion in Fascism Today"?  Then again, a Fascist
>might be in favor of the same... Hmmm.

Most of us (self included) would oppose the magazine but support your
right to purchase and read it (and it's right to publish, of course).
Assuming that the models posed freely.    ;-)

We're approximately the opposite of Fascism and Socialism and
Communism (which are really three faces of the same thing: namely,
Authoritarianism).  Hope this answers your question.

--
        Robert Bickford                       rab@well.sf.ca.us
 Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party    /-------------------------------------\
      of Marin County (CA)        | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                                  \-------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:175 alt.politics.elections:9129
From: wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: privitization (was Re: Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord in
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:54:38 GMT
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Jul24.122604.14133@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
> 
> I think the problem is that people think that private business
> is automatically well run, competent and will make a profit.
> That is a myth.  Just look at GM, what were they doing when
> Japanese cars were making inroads.

I agree.  Private business, in and of itself, is not automatically
well run or efficient.  There are many examples of this.

> GM was developing dud cars, that no one bought.  As a result, they lost
> alot of money.

And what happened?  GM and the other inefficient auto manufacturers got
the government to limit car imports.  This removed consumer choice and
forced people to purchase cars that they otherwise would have rejected,
artifically masking the failure of GM's management.

GM has been kept afloat by government intervention in the marketplace.
It's the free market that is "well run" and efficient, not any particular
private business.  A private business that does not respond to the market,
a business that does not listen to consumers and provide what they want, will
fail in a free market.  A government regulated (or owned) monopoly does not
have this market incentive to be well run.

> But lots of people think that private business equals efficeincy.

Lots of people think Elvis is still alive!

John Wilkes   <wilkes@apple.com>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:172 alt.politics.perot:1076 talk.politics.misc:35843
From: wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Questions about libertarianism
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:43:22 GMT
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Jul22.133510.28356@Veritas.COM>, oleg@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
> 
> What sort of "improvement" can you do to the wilderness that is supposed to
> stay untouched to preserve natural wildlife habitats?

That's a good question, and I don't have an answer.  What I had in mind was
applying the homesteading principle to formerly untouched wilderness that
has been clear cut with the collusion of our beneficent federal government.

For example, a group such as Earth First! might "improve" some National
Forset land by removing the logging roads built by the U.S. Forest Service
on so-called "public" land for the benefit of logging companies.  Earth First
and/or other environmental groups could take direct responsiblity and thereby
acquire property rights, which would empower them to protect and preserve
their land.

The U.S. Forest Service has amply demonstrated its inability to protect and
preserve the "public" land entrusted to them.  I say it's time to privatize
this govenment-owned land, and I propose that the idea of homesteading be
used to acomplish that.

> What objective criteria can be used to arbitrate a dispute bewteen an 
> environmentalist group that claims the ownership because they are preserving
> the wilderness vs. a mining company that wants to uproot the forest to get at
> the minerals, or a lumber company, or a housing developer?

One of the most important functions of government is to define and enforce
property rights.  When an environmentalist group has legal title (ownership)
then they have control.  The key is to empower environmental groups in the
private sector.  Government must take the lead by expanding property rights
and the concept of ownership.  Once that is done, it becomes a legal problem.

Interestingly, in Africa, adoption statutes have given villagers and tribes
the opportunity to acquire ownership rights in rare animals such as elephants.
We can learn from examples such as this.

John Wilkes  <wilkes@apple.com>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:221 alt.politics.elections:9222