HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Pledge of Allegiance
Date: 14 Sep 1992 16:54:27 -0500
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: dopey.crhc.uiuc.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.

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
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson)
Subject: Re: Libertarians, guns, etc. 
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:10:14 GMT

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?

Peter Johnson
University of Waterloo.
-- 

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: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: free market
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:50:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

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
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has
Date: 8 Sep 1992 19:10:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

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.


Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: looking for a new country
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:55:00 GMT

I'm looking for a new country to live in, and would welcome suggestions (please,
not Iceland).  It has to be somewhere I can legally work and make enough to
live comfortably and support a family.

I have eliminated the following countrie

England (my home country):  No jobs, low standard of living and absurdly high
   cost, poor salaries, expensive housing, embarrassingly bad government
US:  Absurd immigration restrictions
Canada: Virtually eliminated from future employment after a very public dispute
    with government ex-employer
Thailand:  Restricted from entering and altogether eliminated from employment
     after previous employer took out contract on my life (I jest not) and
      had armed guards prevent me from entering the university department in
      which I worked
Philippines: (my wife's country) - impossible hassles, massive corruption
Germany:  my last workplace - people awful, food intolerable

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

Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Charity vs. gov't handouts. (was Re: Abandoning the Sinking Ship)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 07:33:22 GMT

In article <Kaq-pZ=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>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.

I would just like to add that the same kind of reasoning applies to private
charities.  People won't continue to give to a charity that they perceive isn't
working.  It takes government to prop up something as awfull as, for example,
welfare.  Left to their own devices, people would have withdrawn support for
welfare long ago, and would have moved support to organizations with better
ideas and better results.
 
Look at the United Way scandal.  What was it, 6 or 8 weeks between the
discovery of abuses and the eventual end of the whole thing?  They canned
the head and a bunch of his pals, changed some old rules and made new ones,
and, I think, they even tried to deny the abusers their pensions.  All 
this was handled pretty much in the open.  Compare that to any government
scandal anywhere.

While this was going on, local UW chapters were witholding money from the
national organization.  When's the last time you heard someone in state or
local government stand up and tell the fed that "I'm not releasing a penny of
this money until I can look the tax payers in the eye and tell them that it's
going where they think it's going.  Yes, I'm violating my contract.  So sue
me.  I'm still not doin' it."?

They behave this way because A) They're nice folks who give a damn (like
most of America) and B) Because they like what they're doing and want to 
keep on doing it - and the people have the power to remove that possibility.

   Thanks awfully,
              Patrick

From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:33:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"?  Intrnat'l response wanted!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

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
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has
Date: 4 Sep 1992 23:08:31 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

>But many libertarians would probably take the Randian line here and say 
>that it was the early government controls on business (made possible through 
>stretched interpretations by the SC of the interstate commerce clause in the 
>....
>I'd have to agree with Rand about this: It is probably true to say that the 
>pure free-market system [i.e. laisse-faire capitalism] has never been tried--
>not in America. 

So the only way a libertarian system can work is if something as complex as
the United States enters a steady state where no alibertarian things happen?
If this is true then a libertarian system is not very robust. People run the
government, people set laws, people interpret laws, such a system MUST by
its very nature vary. It's like building a house of cards in system that
assumes no wind and them moving to Florida...


From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:48:14 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, fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:

> In <1992Sep4.130348.7850@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:
> 
> >(but not to statists). Invariably, the argument assumes that those dirty  
> >capitalists will gain control of the government and subjugate everyone. This  
> >seems to be some religious credo of the left since I have seen no proof that  
> >this scenario is will happen under libertarianism.
> 
> How about the United States Government?  Leaving aside the bit about "dirty
> capitalists", a government that was created under essentially Libertarian
> ideals has in fact degenerated into statist subjugation.  Isn't this an
> example of this scenario?

This is something that concerns me.  The US government was
somewhat more libertarian, but it was totally unable to prevent
its descent into socialism.  And along the way, there was a LOT
of abuse of slaves and indians, etc.  Also there was labor
violence, tenant unrest, big business in bed with govt. etc. etc.

It is my belief that the 'libertarianism' of the past probably
CAN be improved upon, but I DO think this may require some 
understanding of socialist forces and how to defuse (rather
than just punish) them.

doug
From: sfa@cs.cornell.edu (Stuart Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Pledge of Allegiance
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:06:39 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853

Here's a variation I could affirm (as an ideal) in good conscience:

I pledge allegiance to the Republic [of the United States of America],
one nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Due process for all.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.education.distance,misc.education,gnu.misc.discuss,alt.society.futures,comp.society.futures,alt.cyberspace
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free market stuff)
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:47:28 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

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
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: Libertarians, guns, etc.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:52:00 GMT

In article <BuMt53.5o5@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Joh 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?

I need it.  How do you want to send it to me?  bank draft, telex transfer,
bullion?

Laurence
From: tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Pledge of Allegiance
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:03:26 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

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.


-- 
Thomas Kunselman                               {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek 
Office of Planning & Assessment          	bitnet: vaatek@ukcc.bitnet
#8 Administration Building			internet:tek@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarians, guns, etc.
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:43:38 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In <15SEP199214522116@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:

>>>I contribute money every chance I get to those who need
>>>it.  I make no value judgments.
>> 
>>	Why not?

>I need it.  How do you want to send it to me?  bank draft, telex transfer,
>bullion?

This is quoted out of context.  I was responding to this comment:

>Maybe Libertarians really are very generous people. Maybe they just
>can't stand the idea of their money being used to buy food for people
>who might be racist, religiously intolerant, rude, boring, bad-smelling
>or devoid of good taste, just because they're people and people 
>deserve to be treated well.

These are examples of what I do not make value judgments based on.

-- 
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: bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has already been posted)
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:43:56 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <fulton.715618535@silver>, fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
|> 
|> How about the United States Government?  Leaving aside the bit about "dirty
|> capitalists", a government that was created under essentially Libertarian
|> ideals has in fact degenerated into statist subjugation.  Isn't this an
|> example of this scenario?
|> 

What Libertarian ideals do you have in mind??  I've read the Constitution
and would hardly consider it an example of Libertarian prose.  The original
intent was better than the interpretations we get today, but there is more
to it that is not libertarian than is.  

The fact that it established a government with the starting powers that 
enabled it to expand itself (and it's powers) to become what we have today
is proof that the original intent was not libertarian but actually statist.
They got rid of one rulling class/family in favor of another.  Only a minor
improvement and only an improvement for a short time.  We now have all the
things again that we fought England to get rid of.  with much less power to
free ourselves from this new tyranny.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: prison labor (was Re: Free market stuff etc.)
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:29:05 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

In <10260017@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:

>> A free market is a self-adjusting system...

>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.

Who owns a prisoner's labor?  Should prisoners be forced to work?
Should they be paid for their labor?  These are interesting questions.

I'm going to go off on a slight tangent here.  (My privilege -- this is
Usenet.)

Prison is for punishment.  Anything that happens to a prisoner is
acceptable provided: (a) it is well described *in advance* when the
punishment is meted out, and (b) punishment has been justly meted out.

For example, suppose a prisoner gets raped.  If the sentencing judge
knew in advance that this was likely to happen, and that this was
well-deserved punishment, and if we agree that such punishment is just
and not "cruel or unusual" etc., then we must conclude that the
prisoner's rights were not violated by the rape.  But if the sentencing
judge did not know this in advance, or he knew but did not take it into
consideration, then the rape is a violation of the prisoner's rights.

But what rights do prisoners have?  Do they have any rights at all?

I believe they have at least one inalienable right:  That the punishment
fit the crime.

Now, back to the original issue.

Who owns the prisoner's labor?  I think the prisoner owns it, and if the
value of this labor is forcibly given to anybody else, an injustice has
probably been done.  I say *probably*, because it might have been the
case that the value of the prisoner's labor was forfeited as part of the
punishment, and in that case, any injustice was done only if the
punishment was unjust.

If somebody is punished with a prison term, and part of the punishment is
for his labor to be used against his will, then the labor should still
not be used to distort the market.  Good ways of using prison labor are
for improving the criminal justice system, or for national defense.  A
bad way of using this labor is to help either side in an
employer-versus-employee disagreement.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.com>
also: dhesi@rahul.net
QUIT
ahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.com>
also: dhesi@rahul.net
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: jdeutsch@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Jeffrey Deutsch)
Subject: Re: Free market stuff (pardon if this has
Followup-To: alt.individualism
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:35:46 GMT

In article <lafr3fINN84@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>>But many libertarians would probably take the Randian line here and say 
>>that it was the early government controls on business (made possible through 
>>stretched interpretations by the SC of the interstate commerce clause in the 
>>....
>>I'd have to agree with Rand about this: It is probably true to say that the 
>>pure free-market system [i.e. laisse-faire capitalism] has never been tried--
>>not in America. 
>
>So the only way a libertarian system can work is if something as complex as
>the United States enters a steady state where no alibertarian things happen?
>If this is true then a libertarian system is not very robust. People run the
>government, people set laws, people interpret laws, such a system MUST by
>its very nature vary. It's like building a house of cards in system that
>assumes no wind and them moving to Florida...

	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). 
	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.
	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.

	Jeff Deutsch

-- 
"Any government that's big enough to give you anything you want
is big enough to take everything you have."
	-Barry Goldwater
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: free market
Date: 9 Sep 92 03:04:58 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

>>>But all too recent history proves that it's not true. The reality of the
>>>South in the 1950s is that there often was no one else that would sell to
>>>Blacks.
>>>
>>>: "white monkeys" in my store. Now, if no one will sell to you, then you
>>>: have a reason for complaint.
>>>:
>>>But under libertarianism, there would be no one to complain to, and no
>>>mechanism for complaining.  And that's exactly why libertarianism, while
>>>wonderful in theory, would in reality be a nightmare for minorities.
>
>>In a free society, however, there would be no laws against minorities
>>starting their own businesses.
>
>How easy is it to start one's own business that would cater for
>minorities, in an environment where discrimination of this form
>exists?  [Obviously not impossible; the majority doesn't want the
>minority to die off altogether.  They just don't want them to
>prosper.]
>

I, just this weekend, read an article in the newspaper about a woman
who, when faced with the glass ceiling, gave up trying to make it in 
the man's world, started her own business. She and some of her women
collegues are making salaries comparable to men's. Her old company 
went out of business.

Gee, and all this in a mixed economy full of bigots.

I want to stress once again that the LAWS of the free society would not
be allowed to discriminate against individuals.


>>These businesses could deal with whomever
>>they wished, also. Don't make the mistake of thinking that a free
>>society entails a necessarily easy life.
>
>There are levels of "easiness"; don't assume that things are
>equally easy for people in different positions.  If you're faced
>with a 10 foot wall, and other people have a 5 foot wall, you might
>feel justified in complaining a bit.  Otherwise, it seems like you're
>saying the rich and the poor are equally free to sleep under bridges
>(or however that quote goes).
>

Now, what makes you think I assume all things are equally easy?

In a free society, there will be a tendency for people to treat each 
other with good will. Good will, hard work, and rationality are
rewarded, but not guaranteed.

In other systems, whining and irresponsibility are rewarded. 

By the way, inflation right now is impoverishing the the lower and 
middle classes (and eventually, everyone else.)
The Fed just cut interest rate again--the ten dollar bill in your
pocket today will buy less tomorrow.

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

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)

-- "Those who know what's best for us,
    Must rise and save us from ourselves"

	--Rush		
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:45:20 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, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

> I'd have to agree with Rand about this: It is probably true to say that the 
> pure free-market system [i.e. laisse-faire capitalism] has never been tried--
> not in America. 

Yes, this is probably true.  Has it been tried anywhere at all?
Ever?  If so, which of the other governments that have tried
it have avoided the move towards socialism?

If noone has actually ever tried it, how are we to be sure that
it is anything other than a totally unrealizable ideal.  I am not
asking this to bait you, I am honestly curious as to the answer.

doug
Newsgroups: alt.individualism