HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:18:14 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <parvin1.718504691@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu writes:

> 
> After the subsidized start-up costs, the cost to society
> (i.e. the taxpayers) is nill.  Mike is right on, here. For 
> large-scale goods,
> the only people that lose in the long run are owners of the monopoly.
> The price is kept down by the competition there-after.

If it is actually possible for the introduced competition to make
money (which is the same thing as saying that the costs to the
taxpayers is nill) then there is no reason to say that private
investors wouldn't be encouraged by the market to start it up.
And start-up costs are no less significant when burdening the
taxpayer as when burdening investors.


> And, as Mike wrote, the savings to consumers can reasonably enter the
> government's calculation, while private enterprise would only consider
> its own profit.  And this savings can greatly exceed the one-time 
> subsidization.

As I pointed out already, the only measure of the value of the encurred
benefit to 'society' of the new supplier is the profit that the new
supplier could reap.  If it is not possible to make profit, then there is
no way to say that the costs of maintaining this artificial competition
don't outweigh the benefits.  There is no investor magic that 'Society
Inc.' has that 'Joe Blow Inc.' doesn't.

On the other hand, if I'm Joe Blow, and I can convince enough politicians
(through convoluted economics and patriotic emotional appeals) that
whatever is good for Joe Blow Inc. is good for America, then I might be
able to get the government to force the taxpayers to pay my startup costs
and I get to reap all the profits.  And if I fail, no loss to me.

thant
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:04:13 GMT

thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:


>If it is actually possible for the introduced competition to make
>money (which is the same thing as saying that the costs to the
>taxpayers is nill) then there is no reason to say that private
>investors wouldn't be encouraged by the market to start it up.
>And start-up costs are no less significant when burdening the
>taxpayer as when burdening investors.

They certainly are less significant.  The private corporation is concerned
only with net profit.  The consumers are also concerned with the actual
prices.  So if subsidizing the start-up costs provides an opportunity
for a firm to profitably enter into competition and bring down the price
level, the net gain to consumers in paying lower prices can easily outweigh
the one-shot startup cost.  Of course, the original monopoly loses some of
its margin, but the consumers gain.

>> And, as Mike wrote, the savings to consumers can reasonably enter the
>> government's calculation, while private enterprise would only consider
>> its own profit.  And this savings can greatly exceed the one-time 
>> subsidization.

>As I pointed out already, the only measure of the value of the encurred
>benefit to 'society' of the new supplier is the profit that the new
>supplier could reap. 

Not so.  The consumers are happy if (startup cost - increase in real income
due to lower prices) > 0.
This "profit=value" mentality is quite misleading.  "Profit" here is simply
the returns to capital (share-holders); the returns to labor (salaries)
and the effect on the real price level are important factors to consider.

>If it is not possible to make profit, then there is
>no way to say that the costs of maintaining this artificial competition
>don't outweigh the benefits.  There is no investor magic that 'Society

There are no maintenance costs.  The venture is not profitable when calculating
start-up costs, but is when those costs are subsidized.

>thant
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: gag65@cas.org ()
Subject: Sponsor of first debat - Annheuser Busch
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:56:42 GMT

One of our Libertarian Party activists here in Ohio just confirmed that the
corporate sponsor for the first presidential debate in Missouri is Annheuser-
Busch.

For those who suggested a possible boycott of the corporate sponsor of the
debates, here's a place to start.

I'm not sure of any of their corporate phone numbers, etc, just wanted to pass
this along ASAP.

--Gary
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jdailey@dadd.ti.com (Jim Dailey)
Subject: Re: Presidential Debates
Reply-To: jdailey@dadd.ti.com
Organization: Design Automaton Div., Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:42:33 GMT

gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
>>
>>1% is speculation.
>>
>>PROVE IT WITH A SCIENTIFIC POLL.
>>
>   1 % is a very common estimate from the media and, based on previous
>showings by the libertarians, not out of line.  
>
>   At least I'm not using a figure like 10 % (like the U. poll) from the 
>treetops without telling anyone or realizing that the polls like that are
>TOTALLY unscientific.

Pardon me?  Are you saying a poll that excludes a candidate IS scientific?
Yeah, right.  How about this "scientific" poll which will prove beyond a
doubt that most people don't like to drink milk:

	Q: Do you prefer to drink water or fruit juice?

---
Jim  jdailey@dadd.ti.com
   TI pays absolutely no attention to me or my opinions; therefore,
   the foregoing posting cannot possibly represent TI's viewpoint.
From: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:14:41 GMT
 <1ave8nINN1hi@armory.centerline.com> <1992Oct8.153846.15441@b11.b11.ingr.com>
Organization: The Software Distillery
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 beta rel2

In article <1992Oct8.153846.15441@b11.b11.ingr.com>, Craig Presson writes:

> I will even be a kindly old grandmother and point out the trap I just
> set: most of the examples you might come up with are results of
> government regulation in the first place, so the optimum is to remove
> that barrier, rather than patch here and patch there.

Yes, and I even realize which one you're probably thinking of, The Bell
System.  Do you know why the monopoly system was enacted for phones?
Before this, it was a total mess.  Some areas had 10 companies competeing,
some had none.

None of them were connected to each other, it was not uncommon for people
to buy a line from two different companies so that they could talk to all
their friends.  In this case 'something had to be done'.  It did take care
of the immediate problem, one phone system interconnected all over the 
country.  

Admittedly, given enough time, things probably would have settled out
into some useful equilbrium.  And I realize that the solution was not
optimal.  Perhaps mandating interconnectivity would have been the
way to go.

Just imagine though what it was like, 10 * the number of wires running all
over the city.  I've seen photos, New York had so many wires running 
between the buildings you could barely see the street from the 3rd floor.


--

 |_o_o|\\
 |. o.| || The           Jay Denebeim
 | .  | ||  Software
 | o  | ||   Distillery
 |    |//        Address: UUCP:     duke!wolves!deepthot!jay
 ======                   Internet: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us
		 If the above bounces try: uunet.uu.net!oichq!deepthot!jay
                 BBS:(919)-460-7430      VOICE:(919)-460-6934
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:29:44 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA



C.D. Tavares writes:

> Let me see if I can paraphrase this.  If market conditions are such that
> any person would be an idiot to voluntarily invest in a competing
> start-up, you would be in favor of the government forcing all of the
> citizens to make exactly this investment.  Forgive me if I admit that I
> don't understand this.


In article <1ave8nINN1hi@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com writes:

> You don't understand it because you are not counting the value to society
> of being able to purchase product at a lower, competitive price.
> Individual investors can only count the reduced profit after competition
> minus the startup costs.  Society as a whole can count as profit the
> reduction in price times the quantity purchased by society minus the
> startup costs.

You don't understand it because you don't realize that the profit *is*
the measure of value to 'society' of that good.  In an accounting sense
they are, by definition, equal.  This means that as far as your equations
go, there is no difference in cost to 'society' whether a private
investor does it or 'society' does it.

(Of course operationally there is a huge difference when 'society' via
the government devoid of market feedback does it and when private
investors risking their own money do it (which is, if you weren't paying
attention, the point of Tavares' message).)

Again I challenge you to present a *single* real-world example of any
of these claims of yours.

thant
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Fairbanks, Alaska...no wait, that's not right...
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:54:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.160156.6598@access.digex.com>, steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich) writes...
> 
>  Besides which, it breaks down so nicely into a descriptive phrase --
>Republic-rats.
>  Politics: from "poly" (many) + "ticks" (little bloodsucking parasites)

This reminds me of something I heard from a friend.  He was at a
function when Andre ran for Vice-President four years ago.  During that,
Andre came up with the following (either original or borrowed from Bill
Buckley, I can't quite remember):

Kakistocracy = government by the worst kind of people

Du = Greek for double

Dukakistocracy = double the government by the worst kind of people

************************************************************************
Sean Patrick Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan*****Internet: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu
WWIVnet: 220@9704*CFN: au414*IRC: RadioKAOS, Aoxomoxoa*Ph: (907)488-8365
BITnet: FSSPR@ALASKA****Snail: P.O. Box 83381, Fairbanks, AK  99708-3381
***"I'm gonna Kentucky Fried Chickenize your prostate surgery." - Oswald
Bates, In Living Color***Disclaimer?  BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!***
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: KGO radio poll
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 23:08:57 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Jim Eason, a talk show host on KGO radio, has added Andre Marrou's
>name to the list of candidates for a presidential telephone poll.
>That's an improvement to 'undecided'.
>
>-- 
>"Read my lips, 'No more statism.'"  - George Bush, NOT!

I was told that Marrou got 20% in the poll.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: drg@candidus.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R. Guilderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Prominent Libertarians (was Re: An answer to one of David Sill's)
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:27:04 GMT
	<1992Oct13.172855.29723@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<YAMAUCHI.92Oct13133528@sartre.ces.cwru.edu>
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

OK, I compiled a list of "prominent" libertarians.  Please check this
and make sure I haven't made any mistakes (accuracy, spelling,
whatever).  Also if you have any additions, let me know.


Small-L Libertarians

Alex Bennett (Bay Area radio talk show host)
David Brudnoy (Boston Area radio talk show host)
Gene Burns (nationally syndicated radio talk show host)
Marilyn Chambers (actress, pornographic films)
Tommy Chong (actor, "Cheech and Chong")
Clint Eastwood (actor)
Milton Freidman (economist, writer)
Al Goldstein (publisher of Screw Magazine)
David Letterman (comedian, talk show host)
Mojo Nixon (singer, "Elvis Eats Boats!")
P.J. O'Rourke (nationally syndicated columnist)
Tom Selleck (actor, claimed to be a lib on the Tonight Show in Sept92)
Jimmy Walker (actor)
Raquel Welch (actress)
Frank Zappa (singer, attempted to get LP Presidential nomination in '88)


Big-L Libertarian Party Members

Dave Barry (nationally syndicated columnist)
Russell Means (??)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
From: parvin1@husc10.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:00:06 GMT
 <1992Oct9.015404.26954@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1992Oct9.014859.16191@husc3.harvard.edu> <Bvv6LE.ByA@encore.com>

rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:

>Don't get so smug, yet, Doug.  You never did explain why the *consumers*
>had to be forced with guns to make this *investment* that is supposed to
>make them so much better off, considering their benefit as both
>*consumers* and *investors*.  Oops?

Hmm... how about lack of impetus, inefficiency and the prisoner's dillemna?

Assume: A program such as I described would benefit all consumers

Now, let's see if it's so inconceivable that a free market wouldn't lead
to this subsidization on its own.

First, to make it work you've got to convince everyone to chip in.  So
I hire an army of volunteers (Who am I? Good question! I can't see this
being worth anyone's individual time and effort) to go knock
on everyone's door and explain to them how if everyone contributes they'll
all make a buck.  Now of course, even if the program is so wonderful
that everyone sees its benefits, I've still
incurred an enormous cost in collection.

But why would anyone pay, anyway?  There's no incentive to join in, since
you can reap the benefits of lower prices whether you pay or not.  It's
like leaving a theater during a fire.  Everyone's better-off if everybody
walks out than if everybody tries to run, but it is better for each
individual to run than to walk.  So what happens?  Everone runs.

Sure, you could make the program "exclusive", only allowing those who
chipped in to reap the lower prices.  But then you've entered a mess
of complications, regulations, and red-tape. 

In short, the market is inferior here because:

A) It is not worth an individual's time and effort to organize this, when
all he sees are his own rewards.

B) The costs of setting up such a program and selling it to each individual
dwarf government expenditures.

C) Short of introducing hairy and expensive regulation, it is to no
individual's advantage to pay for something that he will be able to obtain
freely.

Any of these reasons alone could stop consumers from banding together...
Taken together they show the folly of the notion that consumers will
privately put into practice anything that is good government policy.

-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:21:36 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Oct9.015404.26954@leland.Stanford.EDU>, adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:

> This is the classic exapmle for government intervention. The problem is it
> never works this way because all of the things left out in our ideal world
> which I went into in the last post: political favors, unethical transfers(
> especially from the poor to the rich), future uncertainty, entrepeneurship,
> inability to measure( especially utility and demand curves), etc  [...]

You illustrated the asymtotic case of my example.  I appologize for
missing your original post.  But first, I don't think Mike Huben or
Douglas Parvin fully understood the point you made.  They both 
seemed oblivious to the relationship between profit and 'social
value.'  If I've done them an injustice, I appologize.  Second, 
I'm probably repeating something from your post but it's a very 
important point.

It is unnecessary to refute the "classic example" by refering to
government corruption.  (Besides, there will always be people that will
justify government intervention with the claim that *in theory* it
works.)  Price curves are empirical.  The future, as Desai mentioned, is
uncertain.  The government has no more information about how much room
there is between price and production costs than the market.  And since
in the free market, investors are risking their own money, there is
incentive to make intelligent choices that the government just doesn't
have.  

Besides, one might naively think that the bigger the 'monopoly profits'
the more government intervention is justified.  If the monopoly profits
are small, why bother?  But the more monopoly profits are being made, the
more room there is between price and production costs and the more
incentive there is for competition.  In other words, the more monopoly
profits are a legitimate political concern, the less monopoly profits
are a legitimate political concern.

One last point is that as profits asymtotically approach zero, there are
more than likely better (more profitable) investments to be made
elsewhere.  So even if the government (or even the market) could approach
the 'ideal' price/production condition for a given market, there are more
than likely other markets for which investment would be a lot more
constructive.

thant
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Public schooling
Date: 7 Oct 1992 19:14:48 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <Bvr8sG.16s@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>Libertarians love to claim that $2500 vouchers will make schooling better.
>>I strongly doubt it.  Let's look at some of the "statistics" and claims they
>>like to trot out.
>
>Mike, you could have saved some time.  If vouchers won't make schooling
>better, public schools have nothing to worry about.  The vouchers won't
>be used to send children to inferrior schools.  The voucher system
>wouldn't prevent the public schools from reforming in any way.  The
>vouchers make public schools put their money where their mouth is, and
>you are justifiably worried for them.

Please look beyond the tip of your nose.  "Better" in the educational
sense may not be "better" by the evaluation of a parent.  There is a
large religious population that would trade some secular education
quality to add indoctrination.  Many parents would send their children to
schools that were more fashionable, closer, or gave away toasters as
inducements.

Vouchers would destroy public schools quickly by first forcing radical
downsizing, boosting their per-pupil costs by leaving them the students
that private schools reject as too costly, and reducing their averages
on standardized tests by leaving them the students that private schools
reject as dragging down their own averages.

Vouchers would result in a marketing war like the ones we see for commercial
products.  Do we really need to divert resources from students into
advertising?  Public schools are already disadvantaged in terms of marketing:
private schools have always advertised that they were better (which ain't
necessarily so), but public schools don't budget for advertising.

Mike Huben
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: An answer to one of David Sill's questions
Date: 13 Oct 1992 17:01:02 -0500
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <r1qf47c@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct13.172855.29723@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu writes:
>> Dave Sill asks:
>> 
>> >Name some prominent Libertarians--CEO's, actors, writers, etc.
>
>Also, Dave Barry, David Letterman, Clint Eastwood.  P.J. O'Rourke
>associates with the Cato Institute a lot (although he might 
>consider himself a Republican).

P.J. O'Rourke says he is a Republican.  Most recent source, that I know
of, is the Rolling Stone issue that endorsed Clinton (about a month ago).
If you read his books, he definitely sounds libertarian.

Tom Selleck (sp?) said he was a libertarian on the Tonight Show a few
weeks ago.  Jay Leno responded "..so who do you vote for - Lyndon LaRouche"

>
>thant


-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:01:56 GMT

  >  I prefer "republicrats" as it rolls better.

  Besides which, it breaks down so nicely into a descriptive phrase --
Republic-rats.

  Politics: from "poly" (many) + "ticks" (little bloodsucking parasites)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: amc1@cec2.wustl.edu (Adam M. Costello)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Keywords: abortion,platform
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:52:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.210358.11244@sei.cmu.edu> ask@sei.cmu.edu (Alan Koch) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct14.200014.26341@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>
>|> No, it based upon the belief that a fetus is property, and the rights 
>|> of existing humans beings always take precedence over potential human 
>|> beings.  In fact, potential (non-existant) human beings *have no 
>|> rights*.  
>
>And THAT is the bottom line.  The reason why the pro- and anti-abortion folks
>can't understand each other is that they each base their arguments on their
>own definition of when life begins and what a fetus really is.  You say a
>fetus is property and has no rights.  I say it is human and DOES have rights.

And I say (this month anyway) that fetuses and children alike are both
property and have no rights, but parents have an obligation to their
offspring.  And since a fetus has parents just as children have parents,
those parents have the same obligation to their fetus that they have to
their child.

Why do I claim that children have no rights?  Well, what rights should
they have?  The right to life?  No one has a right to life, as evidenced
by the fact that everyone must die eventually.  The only right that's
really necessary is the right of a reasoning being to exert its will
over its possessions, without direct interference from other wills.  I
see any other right as a corollory to this one.  Since children lack the
ability to reason or even to have a will (both are aquired as the child
enters adulthood, and admittedly that's a gradual process), they can't
have this right.

Besides, supposing that the reason parents must take care of their
children is that the children have rights would require us to take care
of everyone who has at least the same rights, such as all the starving
people in the world.  No, there must be a special obligation that
parents have to their offspring, irrespective of any rights of the
offspring.

To argue that abortion is morally permissible, one must demonstrate not
that a fetus has different rights from an infant, but that a parent's
obligations to one are different from those to the other.  What
rational basis can there be for this position?

AMC
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:815 sdnet.wanted:135