HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:02:14 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep11.160330.25219@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> gfeygin@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>
>Not a welfare payment, but a reward for being frugal and investing
>instead of spending. After all this "overpayment" would also go to
>wealthy person who spends less. Furthermore, the whole idea of refund
>is to make tax system a little more progressive. A few people may
>actually get out more than they paid, but the total amount of
>overpayment would be less than the amount that would be spebt on
>bureacracy+cost of administering of exemptions on necessities of life
>(the system we have in Canada is precisely that --- food for eating at
>home is not taxable, food for eating out is taxable). Thus donut is
>subject to sales tax, but 1dozen donuts in a box are not.  This is a
>nighmare for business. An ocasional "overpayment" due to fixed refund
>would be worth it, in my opinion

So you want to encourage people to save their money and not buy
things.  This is a sure way to halt a growing economy.  You want
people to buy things.  This puts money back into the system where it
can be used to make more jobs.  When people don't buy things, the
manufacturers lay off employees.  The last thing I'd want would be a
system where you get the best return on your money by stuffing it
under your mattress and doing nothing with it.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Fairest Tax
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:10:30 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <BuJBM0.MwC@world.std.com> kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey) writes:
>With all this discussion on tax, I'm surprised no one has mentioned what
>Jefferson called the "fariest tax":  a lottery.  What would be the pros
>and cons of using a lottery to raise "tax" revenues.

Most states have them, but even if the Lotto took in ten times as much
money, it wouldn't be enough to maintain police, fire, roads, etc. for
a state like New Jersey.  I suspect the same in other states, since
they will have lower population densities - meaning fewer people per
square mile (which have nearly the same needs for fire and road work,
although less need for police) to buy the lottery tickets.



-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sglanger@vela.acs.oakland.edu (LANGER STEVEN C)
Subject: Idaho, Randy Weaver and Tax Revolts
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 14:18:07 GMT

  Does anyone (preferably someone in Idaho) know what has become  of
Randy Weaver.

[For those who don't know, during (I think) the last week in August,
this guy was laid siege to by the feds in his cabin atop some
Idaho mountain. According to brief coverage on the ABC Nightly News,
he was a gun running white supremicist. I guesss this is why the feds
thought it was OK to kill his eldest son, wife and dog. 

  However, I've got info from other news groups and radio talk show
interviews with a retired sheriff in Idaho who knows Weaver, that the
actual warrent for Weaver's arrest was for tax evasion and inciting
others to not pay taxes.]

 Anyway, since Weaver's surrender and incaceration, I've heard
no more. What's going on with him?

thanks in advance, steve

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:30:18 GMT
	<1992Sep9.195753.22879@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
	<1992Sep10.012706.1765@nb.rockwell.com> <pro35ks@zola.esd.sgi.com>
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: thant@void.esd.sgi.com's message of 14 Sep 92 20:47:07 GMT

thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
|> Well, one disadvantage with sales tax is that in discourages buying.  In
|> times of recession, people may look at a slightly higher price and decide
|> not to buy something -- let's just hold on to that buck.  This is exactly
|> what should NOT be encouraged during a recession.  An income tax does not
|> discourage anything (especially a graduated or flat tax); people aren't
|> going to stop making money 'cause the government is going to get some of
|> it.
|In other words, taking money away from somebody when they spend it will
|discourage spending, but taking it away before they spend it won't, as if
|the amount of money one had was somehow unrelated to how much one
|actually spent.  Ponder this statement for a moment, and revel in its
|stupidity.

Well, i think it will work out just the way the previous poster
thinks.  That it doesn't make sense just shows that people aren't
terribly rational (or maybe they just don't take the time to be
rational).

I must admit that these various tax strategies are fascinating.
Anyone have any hard figures on what the rates would have to be to
keep the govt at, say, today's income generating level?

Anyone have any idea of the relative regressiveness/progressiveness of
each tax?  For example, stats shw that most people spend almost all of
what they earn over their lifetimes--richer people tend to wait until
they're older while poorer folx tend to spread it out paycheck to
paycheck. 
--
Peace.
              "If God had meant for us to vote,
               he would have given us candidates"
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: adams@bistro.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Positions
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:34:37 GMT

I'll respond to this one:
>2)  In light of the fact that nations such as Japan and Taiwan have
>    very good nationalised education programs, how can Libertarians
>    justify a more privitised education system.
First, note that Japan and Taiwan are very homogenous societies and are much more
like a bee colony than a society like ours.  Thus, from their point of view, 
nationalized education is workable and makes sense.  This is not the case in our
society.  Thus the attempts we have made to provide public education have been
dismal to say the least.

The public system we have is the welfare of education.  It promotes apathy and
malaise in the students.  A private system is preferable not only because of the
better education that it provides but because when people have to work to send 
their children to school they will be much more likely to take an interest in 
how well their child is doing.  Now, given the political reality of government
controlled education the concept of the voucher system is a good "half-way"
solution.  It already cost the government almost as much money per student to
provide a lousy public school education as the voucher program would cost (in
the voucher system, the government would give vouchers worth about $5000 to each
student which could be used to pay for private education.  This would have the
side benefit of creating more competition in the private school sector and thus
further improving the quality of education and lowering tuition).

As a libertarian, I'm not against government support of education (in the form
of vouchers) because I believe that education is a public good from which 
everyone benefits.
From: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Fairest Tax
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:10:13 GMT
Reply-To: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI

In article <BuJBM0.MwC@world.std.com>, kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey) writes:
>With all this discussion on tax, I'm surprised no one has mentioned what
>Jefferson called the "fariest tax":  a lottery.  What would be the pros
>and cons of using a lottery to raise "tax" revenues.
> 
>                            Ken

You mean a lottery as in buying chances at material gain?
Or some random method of deciding who has a tax liability?
(Like military conscription...?)
Where is Jefferson quoted as promoting this???
Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: property tax? was: Income tax or excise tax?
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:16:01 GMT


 ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:

   the judiciary.  Given all of that, the benefit that one derives
   from protection is proportional to the amount of property that
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   is being protected.  Insurance for a mansion is more than for
   a hovel, likewise tax for defense should be more for large
   property owners.  Additionally, even if you have no money, your
   life is being protected and the potential to make money is
   being protected.  That *might* argue for a head tax in the sense
   that your body is property too.

last time I checked, the crime rate in the projects has been several
orders of magnitude higher than in the upscale areas.  by your reasoning,
the wealthy would pay nearly nothing for police and fire protection.  likewise,
"entitlements" would also be charged more heavily towards the bottom end
of the economic scale.

   Yes, there are serious pragmatic objections to such a proposal.

you bet!

the underlying problem with taxation is that each person in the debate
wants to stick it to the other guy.  if there is _any_ attempt at
legislatively assigning tax responsibility according to some criteria,
the inexorable tendency towards mob rule will be realised.  in LA, white people
might be singled out for heavy tax burdens; in NY, the Jewish community 
likewise.  the only fair tax is a head tax.


--
 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Devon Prichard                       I haven't lost my mind;         |
 | Senior Gofer                         its backed up on tape somewhere.|
 | Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.                                  |
 | prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov                                         |
 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Flame. (was Re: Idaho, Randy Weaver and Tax Revolts)
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:06:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Note followup.

In article <1992Sep13.141807.16291@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, sglanger@vela.acs.oakland.edu (LANGER STEVEN C) writes:
>   Does anyone (preferably someone in Idaho) know what has become  of
> Randy Weaver.
> 
> [For those who don't know, during (I think) the last week in August,
> this guy was laid siege to by the feds in his cabin atop some
> Idaho mountain. According to brief coverage on the ABC Nightly News,
> he was a gun running white supremicist. I guesss this is why the feds
> thought it was OK to kill his eldest son, wife and dog. 

a) This has nothing to do with libertarian politics. I don't know where
   better to discuss it than here, but alt.flame sounds like a good start.
   You can email to me also, if you like.
b) Mr. Weaver was arrested on a Title II weapons charge (federal crime,
   penalty not to exceed 10 years in prison and $10,000 fine), and he
   didn't bother to show up in court (I don't know if there was a bail
   that he skipped). He had made it clear that he would react violently
   to further interaction with law enforcement, so the feds approached
   his case with significant trepidation.
c) His son was killed in a gun battle triggered by Mr. Weaver's friend/
   adopted son. One of his dogs (he had several) was shot while munching
   on a deputy U.S. Marshall's arm. I don't know the circumstances of his
   wife's death, but it happened the day after the gun battle. By that time,
   politics would have had very little to do with anyone's actions - combat
   priorities were almost certainly foremost by then.

As far as I know, there is very little relationship between the goals and
methods of White Supremacists and those of Libertarians. A number of groups
with varying agendas would like to have a freer hand and less interference
from the government, but that doesn't make them libertarians.

Lastly, your information on the case seems to be exclusively from TV and
netnews. If you're going to make comments like the above "...this is why...",
you should at least make an attempt to obtain information from the print
media, which is usually far more detailed.

My apologies for this flame.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian myths.
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:56:35 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <9107@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <192vihINN4da@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
> >These dogmas take the form of short, bumpersticker myths with about as much
> >honesty as former President Reagan's statement that "trees pollute".
> >Here's a collection that was kindly provided for us.
> This is the best news I've seen all day.  Since it has been conclusively
> proven that trees do pollute, this must mean that libertarian dogmas
> have also been conclusively proven.  Trees give off hydrocarbons which
> react with sunlight to form smog.  The environmental laws dealing
> with cars over the last 20 years have been a monumental waste of time
> and money.

Easy, easy... Trees do give off hydrocarbons, which do produce particulate
and other forms of airborne contamination. But the levels involved are not
comparable to those produced by large numbers of un-environmentalized (:-)
cars. Take Mexico city as an example; the valley of mexico (which is mostly
filled by the city) used to have a lot more vegetation than it does today,
but the smog has been particularly bad only in the last couple of decades.

Cars do produce smog. The fact that vegetation can produce smog as well,
does not mean that car smog is irrelevant.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Congressional email addresses
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:20:03 GMT

In article <Brennan.J.Murphy.53-110992103918@129.74.199.128>, Brennan.J.Murphy.53@nd (Brennan Murphy) writes:
>I've asked this question several times to no avail.  Does anyone know how
>to send email to members of congress???????  Where could I start to search
>for their addresses??????

Sure - just use Esko.Edustaja@eduskunta.mailnet.fi, where
Esko.Edustaja is the name of the representative.  I have their names
but I have misplaced the file - but perhaps you already know the name
of the person you are trying to contact.  Note that if the names
contain "{" or "|" characters they should be replaced with "a" and
"o".

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform
From: bmarcum@world.std.com (Bill Marcum)
Subject: Re: Congressional email addresses
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:15:06 GMT

In article <Brennan.J.Murphy.53-110992103918@129.74.199.128> Brennan.J.Murphy.53@nd.edu (Brennan Murphy) writes:
>I've asked this question several times to no avail.  Does anyone know how
>to send email to members of congress???????  Where could I start to search
>for their addresses??????
>
Sheesh!  They can't even balance their own checkbooks, let alone the nation's,
and you expect them to have e-mail addresses?

PS: If you really wanted to, you could get an account on Compuserve; they have
a service called "CongressGrams", but it's probably cheaper and easier just
to use old-fashioned paper mail.

Bill Marcum  bmarcum@world.std.com



Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State
Keywords: quis custodiet?
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:23:56 GMT


   This discussion seems to have drifted from the question of the original
intent of the First, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to jurisprudence.
I came across a very interesting quote in this regard just tonight:

      To seek to be wiser than the law is precisely what good laws forbid.

				 	-- Aristotle, Rhetoric I. 15.

   The heart of judicial activism, it seems to me, is to "fix" the
Constitution, or to "update" it without using the amendment procedures
spelled out therein.  It is in our power to change our Constitution by
amendment.  It is part of our political freedom to try to do so if we
wish.  It is _not_ the province of a nonelected, nonrepresentative body
to amend that very law which establishes their existence and authority.



John Rickert					Where laws are not sovereign,
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		demagogues arise.
							--Ar., Politics
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 12 Sep 92 04:31:28 GMT
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>This is unadulterated trash that not only is insulting to GHWB to most
>americans who supported that war. YOU may want to send your money to
>support the expansionist dreams of a middle eastern butcher, but I
>don't. The gulf war was supported by almost every country in the world.
>You are just off in the margin.

  Ah, but if ol' Georgie hadn't covertly supplied Saddam with arms (up until,
what, 5 months before the war), we probably wouldn't have had to even get
involved.

  -jack-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: jmoody@netcom.com (Jim Moody)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:58:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>Err, it would be more appropriate to blame almost everyone in the US Federal
>Government. The farm "support" silliness goes back 60 years and cannot
>be blamed on Bush or the current democrat controlled congress. It is
>done by every government in the world (take a look at what France or
>Japan do to foreign competitors). I'll bet that OZ has it's own
>version of farm protections.
>-- 
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
>john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
>       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
> - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - 
Well the point is actually not who "started" farm subsidies...there were 
good reasons for them then etc that we can debate some other time ....but
whether or not Bush, the great free marekteer, used the promise of $7 billion
dollars in subsidies to try and blatantly buy the votes of Americas farmers.
Evidence is, based on sudden reversal of a previously held position, that he 
is up to his usual tricks of promising ANYTHING that will get him elelcted.

The economic evidence of the declining wealth of the American worker, evidence
which Bush says he doesn't accept, should get him ousted, but this kind of thing
may keep him in power.  Heaven help us if it does.

-
-- 
Jim Moody	jmoody@netcom.com	(415) 978-3289
===================================================================
    "The mystery does not get clearer by repeating the question"
         "nor is it bought by going to amazing places"*
                                                          Rumi
==================================================================
From: kjc7435@ultb.isc.rit.edu (K.J. Cater )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Whatever happened to Jerry Brown?
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:48:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Originator: kjc7435@ultb

Whatever happened to Jerry Brown?  DID he formally hand in a resignation
for the presidency?  What is he doing now?  Please let me know via
e-mail, at: "kjc7435@ritvax.isc.rit.edu".

Thanks!!!!!

K. Cater.
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Alexander Hamilton a Leftist?
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:22:02 GMT
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <195ouvINN469@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>Well, if my memory serves me right, I believe Jefferson wanted an
>agriculturral nation.  Hamilton wanted something else.
>
>And didn't Hamilton in the Constitutional convention want a life-long
>term for the president?  (or wasthat someone else).  I suppose in those days,
>aristocratic tendencies and similarities to the monarchies were considered
>"conservative" in nature.  Those who preferred the ideals in the Article
>were generally speaking, "liberal."
>
>Also, the Constitution was written to help provide domestic tranquility
>following Shey's Rebellion and others.  Anarchy was in the air, and Hamilton
>wanted a strong government to keep law and order.
>
>All I rememberfrom my high school days was preferring Hamilton to Jefferson.


	Well, that is the lovely thing about public education. Teachers
love to teach a 'concrete,' 'memorizable' history. They select the argument
which appeals most to them. My own history book glorified FDR and
JFK and Hamilton over their opponents, Jefferson, et al.  It is a
neat way to indoctrinate the future generations to vote for your
party, isn't it?  I guess you must have been a good student who
didn't argue with his teacher or question the books.
	No, in those days as in ours, aristocratic tendencies were
in opposition to democracy, in which the commoner is respected enough
to be given a vote.  In these days, the 'cultural elite' makeup
the Democrats who would rewrite the history books and the
newspaper stories so that the 'rednecks' who actually work and support
the people do not throw the bums out(Yo LaFave).
	George Washington was also, some might say, on Hamilton's side.
Hamilton would have been happy to make George the king of America.
	It's all a bunch of rubbish.  Anarchy wasn't in the air.
Hamilton just wanted to be able to play ball like the big boys
across the pond. Well, today Hamiltons aristocratic descendents,
the congress, are playing serious ball, to the tune of trillions of
dollars.  No, it was still a 'big,' 'liberal' change from a people
who threw off the B.S. of elitism and the inherently superior
to create a system which was based on the necessary superiority of
a politically-created 'solution.'

				J. Wagner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton