HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:24:34 GMT

In article <ARCHER.842.727640186@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.165541.16010@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>>>People who get to a given piece of real estate first are
>>>>entitled to have "property rights" to it, while a person who gets there
>>>>second is entitled to be charged with theft or trespassing.

>>>That is correct, be it "real property," or ideas.  That's why we have 
>>>copyrights, patents, and trespassing laws.

>>Why is that the case, though?  This isn't a *natural* right; it's a
>>government created right.

>Sure it is (a natural right).  You are entitled to the fruits of your labor, 
>including your thoughts and ideas.  You own that with you make, or that with 
>you trade what you make for.

Sure, I've read Locke.  I just don't know why mixing your labor with a
piece of land should give you ownership of the land.  The land isn't the
fruit of your labor--it was there before you got there.

>>>You own your thoughts, talents, labor, and any products thereof.  Futher, 
>>>you are have the right to exchange those thoughts, talents, labor, or 
>>>products for those of others (with thier consent.)  Through this exchange, 
>>>you can also own the property of others.  Ownership and exchange of these 
>>>things is in no way a creation of government. 

>>But very few things are solely a product of your thoughts/talents/labor/etc.  
>>There are a lot of raw materials..

>Not really.  I will concede that physical devices, such as computers, or 
>chairs, require certain raw materials.  But the design belongs to the 
>designer, and the raw materials are traded for.  While they are not solely 
>the product of one persons labor, those components that were not, were 
>traded for.

Sure, now.  But where did those raw materials *originally* come from?

>>>>I submit that property rights are an artificial creation of government.
>>>>In a state of nature, you would own no property, except perhaps what you
>>>>could carry.

>>>In a state of nature, you would own whatever you could take and keep through 
>>>force of arms.

>>Ownership would be a meaningless concept, in that case.  Possession would
>>be what counted.  Not some piece of paper which said you owned something.

>Not exactly.  By accumulating things of value, and hiring others to guard 
>things for you, your "possession" can reach as far as your gold and your 
>charisma.

Then it's simply might makes right.  I own it because I have a gun.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:29:43 GMT

In article <21891@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:
>In article <nate.1106@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    That's not what he was saying last week to that conservative lady 
>>caller who was complaining about his near-total focus on Clinton. In his 
>>belated pseudo-response to her criticisms he said that he had to focus on 
>>Clinton in the interests of "good reporting". Why is Rush concerned about 
>>engaging in "good reporting" if he's not a reporter?
>
>"Good reporting." Good catch, Nathan!

It is amazing what minutiae people in this group focus on - have you guys
ever heard of "tongue-in-cheek"? Do you know what it means? Can you say it?
-- 
John Switzer             | 1/22/93-Scientists report domesticated cats have
                         | smaller brains than their feral cousins. 
Compuserve: 74076,1250   | 1/25/93-LA Times reports Socks is terrified of 
Internet: jrs@netcom.com | President Clinton. Coincidence? You decide!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70273 alt.peeves:19720 soc.culture.usa:10237
From: monaghan@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (N.O. Monaghan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Are you pro-choice on education? (was Re: Pro-)
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:37:38 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.201613.27707@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>|> How would a voucher system be any more a 'subsidy for the rich'
>|> than the current public school system? This is a red herring.

>It will be a subsidy for those who can already afford to send their
>kids to private schools.  Those who can't, tough.  Private schools
>are a business, and should not be supported with government money.

It is not the government's money - it is the taxpayer's money - and it
is the taxpayer who should have the right to educate his children
according to his own resources - is he uses aprivate school, his tax
should be reduced by an appropriate amount, rather than his paying
twice. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
N.O. Monaghan

monaghan@dcs.gla.ac.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Enforcing U.N. sanctions
Date: 20 Jan 93 20:01:43 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <C12pFx.9Jz@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:

>    The post-Cold War era is shaping up as a global confrontation 
>    between Islam and the rest of the world.  
 
Concern has been expressed via commentary that atomics might be part of this
new Islamic State via the predominately Islamic Nations of the former Soviet
Union. Add to this mix a huge chinese populace under the control of a handful
of Elites with a developing atomics program. The real danger is if the Muslims
rally behind a Saddam type totalitarian leader. Anyone for a three way second
cold war brought to you by, The Elites of the World ?
 Statism, Just say no !

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Budget deficit and trade deficit 
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:49:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.231513.8855@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> Trade deficit = Exports minus Imports.  Note that domestic consumption of
>  domestic goods has nothing to do with the trade deficit.

  Yes.

> Exports are exogenously determined -- the budget deficit has little to
>  do with this.

  Yes.

> Imports are in a direct relationship with national income -- the more income
>  there is, the more imports people buy.  This should not be surprising --
>  the more income people have the more they consume, both of domestic and
>  foreign goods.

  Stop right there. Why does this correlate? If foreign goods are of
a superior quality/price ratio people will buy them in larger numbers.
This phenomenon is completely independant of budget deficits. Also, a 
growing national income in itself would explain why the absolute number
of dollars shipped out of country is larger. 
  I'm also dubious about the inviolate nature of this "direct relationship"
between national income and imports. Care to take a stab at some hand 
waving mathematical formula describing this relationship? 
  As a note, in order to make any sense of a trade imbalance, the
dollar amounts must be taken as *relative* measures of that imbalance.
Devaluating the dollar by a factor of ten, say, would not in itself
make the trade imbalance any better or worse. Thus if you are basing
your argument around the actual dollar amounts, your analysis is
flawed whether or not the deficit is an issue. 

> Income is increased by lower taxes and increased government spending, i.e.,
>  deficit spending.

  And higher interest rates because of financing the debt. This has a
real downward pressure on the valuation of the dollar against, say, the
Yen. This in turn makes foreign goods much more expensive (given exchange
rates). Why didn't this have a stifling effect on imports?  This line of
reasoning is dubious at best. 
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Oil in Somalia
Organization: pubs
Distribution: usa
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:40:09 CST


[Repost; first apparently lost]

Isn't it amazing how Bush suddenly turned "humanitarian" in his final weeks in
office, moved by the suffering in Somalia?  An article in the Minneapolis Star
Tribune notes that four oil companies have been highly active in Somalia, and,
as it happens, Somalia has a HUGE untapped oil reserve.  (This isn't surprising,
since Somalia is just across the water from Arabia.)  So George went to war for
oil; this is the one thing he really believes in.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69616 misc.legal:23250
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Date: 25 Jan 1993 05:49:26 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><   (One might say she was gored for violating tax laws, too, but the tax laws
><   in question are held in about as much respect by the general public as the
><   laws against speeding, so I doubt they had much to do with it.)
>
>	Sure, Smith, try running a business and not paying FICA
>	taxes.
>
>	Tell us what happens....

What would happen would be what happens to the millions of other people who
ignore this: *NOTHING*.  How many parents do you think pay FICA for their
babysitters?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:33:01 EST
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy

In article <PA146008.659.728160112@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
(David Veal) says:
>In article <93027.030741MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@
>psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>For once and for all it's not The Military's job to underhandedly lobby      t
>against
>>the President's policies. It is The Military's job to do what the President
>>and the Congress order it to.

>       If Clinton orders the military to drop the administratic ban on
>gays, then I have absolutely no doubt that Colin Powell and the others will
>grit their teeth, say "Yes, sir, Mr. President," and do it.
>       They would, however, be derelict in their duty if they failed to
>advise him based on their own judgement...

Right. It is their duty to advise the President.

IN PRIVATE.

Not by leaking memos to the press, making endless self-righteous public
statements, and intentionally trying to cause public confusion and distress.
If the military leaders weren't kicking and screaming, this whole thing
would be a non-issue.

     "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
   DISCLAIMER: Penn State University cares about my money, not my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:18:46 PST

In article <1k6g2vINNp9e@transfer.stratus.com>, on 27 Jan 93 17:17:19 GMT,
jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

>
>In article <1993Jan26.193114.318@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp
>(Michael Friedman) writes:
>> Jack, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.  The
>> Libertarian Party believes that workers have that right.  I fail to
>> understand why you think they don't.
>
>The problem is, a right isn't much of a right if the government
>doesn't prevent others from taking it away from you. I have
>the right to vote for whomever I want to. It wouldn't be much
>of a right, though, if my company said "if you vote for
>anybody but .... we'll fire you" or my landlord (if I still
>lived in an apartment building) said "if you don't vote
>for X we'll refuse to extend your lease next month when it
>comes up."  (The latter can be an even bigger problem if you
>landlord owns many of the major appartment complexes in
>the area).
>
>Similarly, the right to form a union isn't much of a right
>if someone can be fired for joining a union or trying to
>form one.
>
You seem to be rather confused as to what things are rights and what
things are not. You have a right to join a union, and you have a right
to vote anyway you like. In the absence of a contract to the contrary,
you do not have a right to a perpetual tenure in somebody else's
apartment building, and you do not have a right to a particular job
beyond the point where the employment is not mutually desired.

As a parenthetical note, I'm often puzzled by the implicit assumption
that to be terminated from a job represents a one-sided loss of benefits
to the ex-employee.  Doesn't the employer also lose the value of the
work produced as well?  Or are you perhaps assuming that a unionized
worker isn't really worth his wages and that an employer has a net gain
by firing him?

    =Jack=
---
Jack B. Newsbaum             I would have been born again; however,     00010000
Library Information Systems  Mom didn't think much of that idea.        00020000
University Research Library  Make money, not war!                       00030000
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu     Closets are for clothes.                   00040000
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: brent@syacus.acus.oz.au (Brent Davies)
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:43:54 GMT

ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

>OK, I'll offer some constructive criticism.  To Clinton (and Gore) - 
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^(*tee hee*)
>resign now and save the country a lot of grief.  You weren't elected
>because the people wanted you, you were elected because the electorate 
>didn't want Bush as President any more.  

TRANSLATION:

The American electoral process as outlined in the Constitution is a BIG
PILE OF HORESHIT because (*boo hoo!*) the guy I wanted didn't get in and
(*waaaah!*) besides, just because the American people thought Bush was a
waste of Presidential space doesn't mean they shoulda gone and done 
something so STUPID as to vote in the guy they thought was a better CHOICE!
(*snif!*) (*scratches head*) (Wait a minute... is that what I meant...?)

>Get down off your overinflated
>ego and realize the people aren't in love with you, you're not the
>reincarnation of Jack Kennedy.

TRANSLATION:

(Grr! I HATE the fact that Clinton's already more popular than Bush ever
was, that the Inauguration had a magic Bush's never did, that there's a
feeling of fuckin' HOPE in this country that Bush was never able to
engender! GRR!! I just HATE that!! And besides, I can just *tell*--well,
because I'm *clairvoyant*, that's why, and you can call me Claire--I can just
*tell* that all that popularity and good feeling and love is fake, *fake*,
FAKE!! *grumble* *grumble* *grumble*)

-- 
 _--_|\    Brent Davies                    ACSnet:    brent@syacus.acus.OZ
/      \   Aust Centre for Unisys SW       Internet:  brent@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
\_.--._/   700 Blackburn Rd                Voice:     +61-3-550-1640
      v    Melbourne, Australia 3168       FAX:       +61-3-550-1599
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (TRUTH IS. BELIEF IS NOT REQUIRED.)
Subject: Re: What to do?
Summary: Last amendment 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 28 Jan 93 04:58:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.034959.6429@news.ysu.edu>, ai356@yfn.ysu.edu (Robert Edward Schmidling)       writes...
>I am new around here. I pose this question. "How do we the people
>get back our country?"  For so long now we have allowed the 
>government to do what they want with no way of stopping them.
>For example, how do we stop congress from giving themselves
>another raise that they don't deserve.

A constitutional amendment was passed just last year that prevented 
congress from giving themselves raises during their term.
> 
It is now proved beyond a doubt                              Garrett Johnson
that smoking is one of the leading                        Garrett@Ingres.com
causes of statistics.                                        Alameda, Calif.
  :^) We're making progress. Things are getting worse at a slower rate.:-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Xianity
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:14:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1993Jan20.220943.14493@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, egilder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric Gilder) writes:
>>You guys really need to learn how to spell christian.  Christ was a person
>>(and God) not an "x".
> 
> Wes, "Xn" has been an abbreviation for "Christian" since the catacomb days.  
> Just like "Xp" means Christ and that IHS one sees on some communion tables 
> means "Jesus"  "X", in this case is "Chi", the first letter in "Xpostos" which 
> gets transliterated Christ, whereas IHS is Iota Eta Sigma, from IHSOUS, which 
> is from the Hebrew Yeshua, and gets transliterated to English as either Joshua 
> or Jesus.  OK?

     Therefore: our new Secretary of State is Warren Xopher; Xopher
Reeves is to play Al Gore in "The Bill Clinton Story"; Xiane Amanpour
is a reporter for CNN; and Malcom X was really Malcom Christ.  :-)
    I think some people use the "x" abbreviation because of their
struggle in either writing or saying "Jesus Christ."  (For those of
you in this category, do not feel alone -- Billy Graham used every
euphemism for "Christ" that he could conjure up during his inaugural 
prayers.)

     C. Perttunen
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69279 alt.politics.usa.misc:918 alt.politics.reform:209
From: Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:28:15 GMT
 <1j78ufINNf07@cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu>  
 <Jym.19Jan1993.1919@naughty-peahen>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <Jym.19Jan1993.1919@naughty-peahen>
jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

> =o= Unless that happens, it is entirely reasonable to suspect
> the Libertarian platform of representing the interests of
> powerful members of the private sector rather than the interests
> of individuals _per_se_.
>     <_Jym_>

 Well, Jym, there's a good reason it seems that way : it is that way.
Big Business would rather deal with a small government than a big one,
so they can get away with more shady dealings. The Libertarian party
has money : do you think a truly progressive party would ever get the
kind of financial support the Libertarian Party gets? Of course it's a
party of wealthy private interest : so are the Republicans, and, to a
lesser extent, the Democrats. Personally, Wall Street frightens me a
lot more than Washington does...



Tim Young - Dartmouth College, Class of 1996
(The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth
College or Dartmouth students(read the Review lately?))
"Not everyone can carry the weight of the world..." - R.E.M.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69368 ca.politics:10639 ba.politics:8279 alt.sex:42929
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:43:46 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <13954@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In <1993Jan16.052356.28532@Princeton.EDU>, (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>> In article <13911@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >In <1993Jan12.093713.5445@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

># ## He doesn't defend child molestation at all.  He says that sex with
># ## children under a certain arbitrary age limit may not be child molestation.

># ## But literacy never was your strong point...

># #I see.  If we redefine you as as "subhuman" then concentration camps
># #aren't committing murder, are they?  More typical liberalism.

># Ah, so you agree with PETA that those veal farms are really Nazi
># camps?  Wow, Clayton is now a vegetarian tree-hugging liberal.  Wow.
># Otherwise, you're just redefining terms so that those people are called
># "animals."

>I'm pointing out the problems of arbitrarily redefining words to
>make them mean what you want them to.  A cow is not a human being,
>contrary to the oft-repeated claim made by Ms. Feral of PETA: "A boy
>is a pig is a dog is a rat."

It works both ways.  A 17 year old isn't a child, contrary to your (and 
some legislatures') oft-repeated claim.  

># Child molestation means molesting people too young to consent.  But what
># that age is is NOT intrinsic to people.  It's being arbitrarily defined
># by *YOU* to be 18 years of age.  Amazingly enough, all over the world
># it's defined differently.  

>Mr. Brack, NAMBLA, and many other homosexuals insist that there should
>be NO line.  Clear enough?  That's NOT the same thing, and you know
>it.  (Or should.)

But not having a line is not necessarily the same thing as saying
"anyone can have sex with anyone," and you know it.  Or should.

Maybe they're saying that "anyone who is capable of consent, no matter
what their age, should be able to decide for themselves."  I don't know.
I haven't read their stuff; I can only judge based upon the excerpts you
post.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:27:30 GMT

In article <2B6617C2.153@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.044626.19510@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan26.201607.4782@news.columbia.edu> jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:
>>
>>>May you be faced with the choice between buying food and buying penicillin,
>>>despite having worked since age 13.
>>
>>A theft is still a theft, no matter what the purpose is.
>>
>>Dov
>>
>
>Are you so frigging bitbrained that you are incapable of distinguishing
>things on the basis of motive?  The legal system in this country does it
>all the time.

I do condemn theft from unwilling citizens under all circumstances.
It is up to the people to decide how and when to spend their money,
not to gun-holding politicians. 

Dov


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69572 alt.activism:21293 alt.conspiracy:14582 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13729