HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:13:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.222747.11735@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
}	Asking someone out on a date is not a crime, and no one wants to
}make it one.

The Mother of sexual harassment, Catharine MacKinnon, does, as does her partner
in crime, Andrea Dworkin.  Then again, they think that if heterosexual sex
involves penetration, then the woman is being oppressed.

>The question is why should it be permissable for one person
}to verbally harrass another?

Nope, the question is whether "unwelcome" sexual advances constitute harassment.

>Assualt (in the legal sense of the word,
}which means to threaten) is a felony, even if no actual attack takes
}place.  Woman seem to feel the same way about assault that men do; however
}they also fall victim to another type of assualt; sexual intimidation,
}commonly called sexual harrasment.

I'm unfamiliar with the definition of "sexual intimidation."  Will you
please elaborate?

}	Do you object to laws against assualt?  Why should one form be a
}felony, and the other a very hard to prove tort?

It's a very hard to prove felony at the moment.  However, I'm of the vein
of libertarian thought that thinks that crimes should be treated as intentional
torts.  This would include felonies.

}	Clearly there is a need for some laws regarding medical
}techniques.  But is there a need for laws regarding mopping techniques?  

Malpractice standards, but that's all.

}However, is there any justification for treating this sort of
}medicine different?  Why should woman's health concerns, not recieve equal
}treatment.

If the woman's health concern is a chosen pregnancy, then holding her as
responsible for it as someone who drinks and drives is equal treatment under
just laws.

}	Your not the first person to say this.  Its suprising that almost
}all the libertarians seem to think marriage should be eliminated.  I'm
}curious to find out why.  This is a very strong stance to take.

We believe in minimizing the State, and see no reason why the State should
favor two-party heterosexual marriages over homosexual ones, polygamous
ones, etc.  Rather than writing a laundry list of kinds of permissible
marriages to be sanctioned by the State, we'd rather get the State out of
the business of sanctioning this private contract.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
From: Harry.Johnson@launchpad.unc.edu (Harry Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Buying Au
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:37:47 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service


I'm interested in buying gold, not in coin form, but in boullion.  I
called my bank today and they said that they don't sell gold except in
coined form .  I have a couple of thousand dollars that I'm interested in
converting and hoarding (i.e., I want it to be in my house, not in a vault
somewhere). 

Where can a person buy gold in lump form?  Also, how much am I likely to
pay in taxes and commission?  Has anybody reading this group done this before?

Harry
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.medicine
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Might be a FAQ
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 04:27:34 GMT

In article <KNY=FC@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.204128.5929@eecs.nwu.edu> ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland) writes:
>>
>>This is certainly true.  Is it possible, however, that, in a
>>Libertarian society, private evaluation companies would come into
>>existence?  Average consumers could pick and choose among such
>>evaluators, and base their judgements on their evaluator's reports.
>>I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts about (1) whether this
>>would actually happen or not, and (2) what problems might still exist
>>if it did happen.
>
>This already *has* happened. Look at the Underwriters' Laboratories.
>Look at the Consumer's Union (and its publication, Consumer
>Reports). How many people base their decisions to buy a product
>based on what CU says about it in CR?
>
>Problems? Not many. Some have suggested to me that if things
>like food and drugs were deregulated and left to private
>evaluators, the evaluations would be susceptible to bribery. However,
>CU doesn't have this problem. CU knows that its success depends
>on its spotless reputation. CU knows that if it accepted a bribe
>to praise a substandard product, its reputation would suffer when
>word got out about the product's actual quality. And it knows that
>its reputation would be utterly destroyed if word ever got out that
>it accepted a bribe.

Also, government agencies can be bribed, too. I've wondered whether
the trust in government regulatory agencies is based on the unexamined
premise that people working for government are generally more honorable
about their work than people in private enterprise. I don't know if 
there's real strong evidence one way or the other on this one.

Nancy Lebovitz

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 16:04:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.060837.3991@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
|> 
|> 	... But there is no reason for the United States to persue
|> economic policies which benefit tratorious people who leave the country
|> during bad times. ...

So my ancestors (and likely yours as well) were traitors to Sweden and
Ireland because they left "during bad times" to emmigrate to the U.S.

Being a traitor is "giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United
States."  We are not currently at war,  so how does one derive traitorous
conduct from emmigration?   Tailgunner Joe had no problem,  but I thought
we abandoned that standard in the '50s.

========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 23:42:15 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1gt8obINNpqn@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
> >No way, no way, no way. The problem with electronic money is that it's
> >very, very easy to trace. Do *you* want the government to have an exact
> >record of your every transaction?
> 
> I'm amazed that this statement has stood unchallenged for several days on
> a network of computer users.
> The technology for untraceable transactions has been around for a few years.
> There was an article about it this past year in Scientific American.  It is
> premised on public key encryption being impractical to break.

Just pay no attention to the men behind the curtain in sci.crypt, who have
been discussing for over a month now the government's express plan to have
everybody register any private key they ever use, or else risk being convicted
of the new crime of illegal encryption of data.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Date: 23 Dec 92 05:09:45 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <1h89n0INNhnd@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
}I would predict that the "feminist" community contains the same ratio of
}statists vs. individualists that you would find in the country at large --
}if anything, maybe even a bit heavier on the statists.  The history of 
}feminism is a chronicle of the attempted harnessing of government power 
}to force social change, which is the antithesis of libertarian philosophy.

Not the entire history of feminism!  Only that of the 20th century, and only
some feminism.  At least from Mary Wollenstonecraft's rebuttal to Edmund Burke
until the late 19th century, feminism was individualist.  See Wendy McElroy's
excellent overview of 19th-century American feminism in he introduction to
"Freedom, Feminism, and the State."

However, this doesn't undercut much of the support for your claim.  Betty
Friedan remains mostly individualist, though, as do many contemporary feminists.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: Who's weakeni 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:06:09 +0000

In article <1992Dec15.091356.3890@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
            wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu writes:

>Now some folks may wonder why the President needs such leverage to delete
>individual words.  Let me give a hypothetical example.  Suppose Congress
>passes a law saying "Private businesses shall not be allowed to drill
>on protected wildlife refuges." Now suppose the President knows it's
>in the nation's best interest to allow drilling in those refuges.
>Now it would be a shame if he had to veto the whole sentence, since he
>agrees with it except one small word -- "not."  We can also argue that this
>was the real intent of the bill and that the word "not" was simply tacked
>on to the bill in some subcommitee by some loony environmentalist.  Most
>Congresspeople voting on the bill probably did not even realize that this
>word was tacked on--you have to read really carefully to realize this.
>Ok so under my proposal the bill without the word "not" would become law
>and if Congress really meant to have it in there they can just vote it
>in with a 2/3 majority.  If they can't get a 2/3 majority for the clause
>then they didn't really mean it, now did they?
>
>Certainly some very clever individual could conjure up cases in which the
>President could abuse this, but we'll have to assume that the President
>has enough integrity not to do this.

I think that in your example the President *did* just abuse it!  by
deleting the word 'not' he totally inverted the sense, on a whim (why
is he better equipped to judge what Congress meant than they are, or
what's better for the country?).  In your previous examples (deleted) I
think he was behaving responsibly, and I would certainly agree that the
combining of dissimilar things in one bill is a decidedly unethical
procedure.

Before someone flames me because I'm not American, we have the same
problem here, but we *don't* have a head of state with that sort of veto
(thank the gods - just don't think what Thatcher would have done with
it!).

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:04:39 GMT
X-Posted-From: iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Dec28.111935.16715@samba.oit.unc.edu>,
bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) wrote:

> I unlike yourself don't see the govt. as some
> evil orginization out to rob me, but a slightly misguided group of good
> hearted people.

Strike the word "slightly" and for the most part, I agree.  But what's the
difference?  The results are the results regardless of the intentions.

--John L. Scott
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Racketeering?
Date: 3 Jan 1993 16:03:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) says:

>The following is excerpted from the 1992 Libertarian Platform:
>
>g.  the repeal  of anti-racketeering statutes  such as  the  Racketeer
>Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which punish peaceful
>behavior -- including  insider trading in securities, sale of sexually
>explicit  material,  and   nonviolent  anti-abortion  protests  --  by
>freezing assets of  the accused and  seizing assets of the  accused or
>convicted.
>
>My question: Exactly how is "racketeering" defined? What exactly does
>the government declare to be illegal racketeering?
>
>-- 
>__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
>\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
>/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
>  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
>
A lot of things.  For example, there have been instances such as a video rental
store being raided for having obscene merchandise.  On the basis of a handful
of allegedly obscene videotapes, the store's entire stock in trade was
seized by the gov't.  Just one example....

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Gold v. Oil: Backed Currency
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 07:11:13 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:

>>You convert some of your assets into something that both parties to the
>>transaction agree upon.

>As I pointed out earlier, there are things called sales taxes and income taxes
>(and others) which interfere if you try converting your dollars to something
>such as gold when you store them.

Ken: Interfere or prevent ?  Other people manage to convert dollars into
things like gold, gems and real estate... what do you imagine they do
about these tax "things" you've described ?

tom
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: Stefan.M.Gorsch@dartmouth.edu (Stefan M. Gorsch)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Might be a FAQ
Date: 23 Dec 92 01:30:29 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

As I warned, this may be a FAQ; I haven't followed this newsgroup.

There is much in libertarian socio-political philosophy which is
appealing. However, I'm not sure how libertarians would approach
certain common societal problems that, IMHO, seem to cry out for
governmental regulation. Examples of these would be 1) distant
consequences (eg, pharmaceuticals - I might discover and market a great
treatment for acne but not perform sufficient preclinical safety
testing. A generation later (when my company no longer exists) it
becomes apparent that 10% of the people who took my medication have
genetically defective offspring. In this context the Byzantine
regulations of the FDA actually seem appropriate). 2) Threshold effects
(an example of this might be the clean air regulations. Individually,
no one's car really generates that much obvious air pollution. In the
aggregate, though, a tremendous amount of noxious waste is generated
with profound health and environmental effects for all. Experience has
proven that in the absence of effective legislation and enforcement,
individual polluters are unlikely to take the unprofitable and
bothersome steps necessary to mitigate the effects of their actions.)

What is the party line, so to speak, on these issues?



stefan.m.gorsch@dartmouth.edu
From: gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Date: 22 Dec 1992 12:29 CST
Organization: GrinchCo
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rigel.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec21.222526.8441@bradley.bradley.edu>, dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes...
>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> 
>>dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
 > 
 >We also need to start sacrificing a bit.  We see Senator X push through the
 >East Dakota Pork Barrel Act of 1993 and we say, "What a scum sucking pig!
 >Term limits!  Term limits!"  Meanwhile, the voters in East Dakota are
 >reelecting Senator X *because* he is good at landing pork.  That pork pays
 >for roads and schools and government services that the people feel entitled
 >to because they have their tax money siphoned off.  So the pork scramble
 >spreads, because if people in East Dakota are going to have a stab at my
 >tax money, then I'm going to get a piece of theirs, godammit!  I've
 >paraphrased de Tocqueville before with his quote "When voters realize
 >their ability to vote themselves public largesse, the decline of American
 >civilization will have begun."  Well, I argue that it's begun already by
 >the people's insistence on reelecting porkbarrel politicians.  And nothing
 >will change until we all decide to give up security for freedom.  Another
 >common exchange:

You seem to understand the situation pretty well,  but you are not coming to a 
sensible conclusion.  People are going to vote for what they consider to
be their own best interests,  and it is foolish to expect them to do 
otherwise.   An experienced,  influential legislator will be able to
do more for his district than a junior representative.  It is almost
always to the advantage of the people in a district to reelect an incumbent
(particularly if he is chairman of an important committe),  but it is
often to the disadvantage of everyone outside his district.
 > 
 >These are the same people who keep reelecting useless incumbents.  Now, one
 >of my prime arguments in favour of libertarianism is that it shouldn't be
 >against the law to be stupid.  Hell, if these folks I've talked to are any
 >indication, stupidity is downright democratic! 

This can't be repeated too many times:  people are not being stupid when they
reelect incumbents,  they are acting in their own best interests,  although
it may be against the interests of the nation as a whole.  The idea of term 
limits is not to allow you to get rid of your own representative,  it is
to allow you to get rid of other peoples' representatives.  That is why it
is generally the big states that are voting for term limits first; a
representative from CA is against the other CA represenatives as often as not,
so weaking CA as a whole doesn't do Californians any harm as individuals.  
>-- 
>*davE*   Making the world safe for intelligent dance music.  dave@bradley.edu.

Mr. Grinch
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 16:34:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.070221.9490@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

|> ... the kind of thing [branding emigre's as traitors] i would
|> expect the government to say just before it starts repealing my "inalienable
|> rights".  ...

Don't look now Charles,  but they already have.  Most of the rights enumerated
in the first ten ammendments to the Constitution have fallen to "compelling
pulbic interest."  Your friendly Feds no longer stand behind them.  Too bad.

========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Japan VS. USA
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:35:53 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <1h5l18INNm5h@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan) writes:
>
>Jeffrey Bolden:
>
>You make two incorrect observations. One, Japan will be the 
>dominant economy. With an incredibly bad living standard, I don't
>see how the economy can thrive for too long. Two, USA has control
>over the world. Gee, wouldn't we have ended communism in Russia
>40 or 50 years ago? Let's become globocop.   
>Even though the U.S. may have the world's most powerful army, that
>doesn't mean it can conquer the world. I personally don't believe
>at this moment we have any say in any conflict around the world
>unless we get directly involved. Getting directly involved is
>extremely costly and next to impossible to always be successful
>in. At the present time, any military cutbacks will not effect
>the present socio-econo-political situation.
>
>Virtually,
>    
>Edmund J. Ryan

	Ryan, both me and the person I have been debating up until now
think that if Japan stays on its current course it will become the
dominant econmy in the world.  Neither if us felt their standard of living
would in anyway damage their GNP.  However if you disagree please explain why.
	As for control of the world.  If your remember I said considering
the cost in lives and dollars.  In other words, yes we have to get
directly involved to excercise control.  There is no magically wand they
give to the president on inageration day to end foreign conflicts.  All
I'm saying is we currently have the military might to do what we want. 
(Note: to stop flames:  I'm not saying "should" I'm saying "can"). 
Basically all I said is that we have the military ability to get directly
involved.  With prolonged deept defense cuts this may cease to be true.  A
much weaker claim, I think, than you interpreted it as, sorry if I was
unclear before.

--JMB
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian