HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:39:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.211553.26045@vela.acs.oakland.edu> wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
}Question to the "anarcho"-capitalists and "libertarians" at large:
}
}Whence the seemingly unshakeable faith in the inability of the private
}sector to coerce?

Because we distinguish between power over nature and power over men.  Coercion
is the latter, not the former.  There's never been any proof that there are
any significant threats from the former.

}Seems to me in a buyers' market or sellers' market the sellers or
}buyers respectively get the short end of the deal.  Market leverage is
}Power.  There are all kinds of things I would do differently if not for
}its existence, and I believe I would be freer absent of it.
}
}I have a positive attitude about exchanging equal value for equal value,
}IF I can approach my adversary on an equal footing.

This just seems plain silly to me.  Bill Gates is worth billions of Federal
Reserve Notes (FRNs), yet this doesn't lead him to, e.g., cut Microsoft's
technical support department.  Nor are all those who bought Microsoft's
latest upgrades doing so out of threat of boycott if they don't.

}Note:  Credit where credit's due.  I feel I understand the Libertarian
}Party well enough to know I emphatically don't support it, but it is the
}only American political party that isn't an insult to my intelligence.
}That includes the other third parties.  You folks challenge me...keep it
}up.

I hope we do.


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." - Voltaire
From: skis@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Kevin Hough)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Vouchers for Schools
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:38:21 GMT
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino CA, USA

In article <19kcatINNngc@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> intruder@cats.ucsc.edu (Isaac Truder) writes:
>
>It's my understanding that George Bush has proposed a program whereby the
>state would allot each parent a certain amount of funds as a voucher to
>send their child to the school of their choice.  I haven't heard the 
>details of this proposal at all, seeing as I don't really go out of my
>way to listen to what that crook's speech-writers have to say.  But I'm
>curious; is this proposed program acceptable to Libertarians, and why or
>why not?


From what I've heard, many people oppose the voucher system because it might
allow gov. funding to religious schools, or schools that mandate some religious
education.  

If a parent is alloted funds to sent their child to a, say, catholic school,
AND, that money would have gone, as tax money, to a public school otherwise,
than that would be taking government money away from that public school to
finance the catholic school.  This would violate the "seperation between church
and state".

What other views are there on this issue?  could there be a system like this 
that doesn't violate such principles?

	Kevin

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: kywilson@apollo.davidson.edu (Kyle Wilson)
Subject: Candidates
Organization: Davidson College, Davidson, NC
Reply-To: kywilson@apollo.davidson.edu
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:37:18 GMT
X-Posted-From: apollo.davidson.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Does anyone have, or know where I can find, a list of Libertarian candidates
running for office in Charlotte/Mecklenberg County, NC (and state-level
candidates, for that matter) in the next election?


================================================================================
"I am friendly with death.  After        |   Kyle Wilson
 eroticism, it's the subject that     	 |   kywilson@apollo.davidson.edu
 interests me the most."                 |   kywilson@davidson
                                         |   P.O. Box 2166     
                --Salvador Dali          |   Davidson, NC 28036
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: adams@liszt.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: You can't, and shouldn't TRY, to control the economy.
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:57:07 GMT

In article <qnj7fe4@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>
>All attempts to justify economic intervention using mathematical models,
>such as static equilibrium, dynamic equilibrium, or even chaotic
>attractors are logically flawed from the start.
>
>When economists write down mathematical equations, they are not
>describing some underlying physical mechanism in terms of 'utility' or
>'value.'  All they are doing is cleverly encoding past economic events.
>
>That the mathematics used has increased in sophistication since
>this was written is irrelevant to the point it makes.
>

The point is, however, not correct.  It betrays a misunderstanding of mathematical modelling
and the purpose of these models. 

First, a mathmatical model is not designed to encode the past.  It is developed based
upon an understanding of the (economic) system involved and uses past information to
"tune" the model.  Furthermore, a good mathematical model takes into account uncertainties
and modelling errors in ways too complicated to explain here.

Second, the purpose of the model is to aid in the understanding of how systems work.  Open-loop
mathematical are not useful for purposes of prediction but they are useful for design.

I will give one example to explain the point:  Consider a system of 1x10^26 particles of, say,
a gas.  In order to model this system, the previous poster would probably claim that Newtonian
mechanics be applied to each particle and then simulated.  This, of course, would be impossible.
It is, however, possible to model the system (using statistical thermodynamics) and get quite
accurate results (namely the four laws of classical thermodynamics and a slew of other things).
What's important is that this modelling neglects a lot of information and also sets up guidelines
for knowing when the results will be accurate and what can go wrong to make the results 
innaccurate.  

-adam


Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:501 alt.society.anarchy:315
From: eja@north6.acpub.duke.edu (Eric Akawie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:31:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian

In article <1992Oct1.094807.8167@hellgate.utah.edu>, galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
|> In article <9389@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> >In <1992Sep30.091620.6641@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
|> >
|> >GA:kicking in your door to search your house is not.  Oh, yeah, I forgot,
|> >GA:you had a choice when you signed your employer's contract--you could
|> >GA:sign it and give up rights, or you could starve.  
|> >
|> >Or you could choose to sign on with another company.

You could also hire your own protective private security company, or own your own
gun. Or tear gas grenades. or any number of other non-deadly force weapons
that would likely be available on a truly free market.  Or to go to an 
extreme, own your own tac-nuke and let it be known that if a private security
company breaks down your door, their headquarters will soon be a smouldering mass
of gravel that is not earning any money whatsoever.

 
|> Unless all companies used the same standard contract.  Remember, there
|> would be no anti-trust laws to prevent companies from joining together
|> to preserve their common interest.  Try to get a credit card now...
|> every company uses the same contract basically.  If everyone didn't
|> like it, then they would eventually change, but most people have the
|> attitude "I have nothing to hide, so I might as well sign it".  Most
|> people would sign it even if they didn't like it, since they need a
|> job to stay alive. 


The counter to this is that the best educated, most intelligent potential
workers are also those that would want the widest variety of freedoms.  The 
companies that offered  the least restrictive contracts would get the best
workers and drive more restrictive companies out of business.

 
|> I'm not saying that governments are good, just that a "Libertarian"
|> society would be more repressive for most people than what we have now.
|> 
|> Libertarians talk about getting rid of government, but they plan on
|> keeping the cops, the soldiers, and the courts.  To me, these are the
|> only things that need to go.  Without cops, soldiers, and courts, the
|> government is no longer coercive. 

The cops soldiers and courts are not coercive, the government monopoly on
cops soldiers and courts (oh my) is coercive.

|> If the employees of these "private security companies" carry guns, they
|> are cops, and they are coercive.  If courts can still enforce contracts 
|> and punish people who break contracts, then they are coercive.
|> 
|> The main difference would be that this new private government would be
|> owned by rich people and businesses, and the poor would have no say at all. 
|> 
|>  




Eric Akawie Freelance Messiah
eja@acpub.duke.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:399 alt.society.anarchy:249
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:16:44 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep29.211553.26045@vela.acs.oakland.edu> wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee) writes:

WL:Whence the seemingly unshakeable faith in the inability of the private
WL:sector to coerce?

I don't know anybody who claims that the private sector is unable to
coerce.

WL:Seems to me in a buyers' market or sellers' market the sellers or
WL:buyers respectively get the short end of the deal.  Market leverage is
WL:Power.  There are all kinds of things I would do differently if not for
WL:its existence, and I believe I would be freer absent of it.

Power exitsts, there is nothing we can do about that.  One of the human
drives is a desire to accumulate power.  (Not all people feel or react to
this drive.  But enough do that I feel safe making a blanket statement.)

WL:I have a positive attitude about exchanging equal value for equal value,
WL:IF I can approach my adversary on an equal footing.

No two people are ever on an equal footing.  Even if you come close, something
will change by tomorrow and the balance will change again.
But if it's power that bothers you, who has more power, the conglomerate
or the government?

If your local supermarket chain does something to tick you off, go to another
chain.  If your local government ticks you off, your'e stuck.
Your ability to take your dollars elsewhere gives you power over the
conglomerate.

WL:Note:  Credit where credit's due.  I feel I understand the Libertarian
WL:Party well enough to know I emphatically don't support it, but it is the
WL:only American political party that isn't an insult to my intelligence.
WL:That includes the other third parties.  You folks challenge me...keep it
WL:up.

There's hope yet.  ;^)
-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: SYVDK@TJUVM.TJU.EDU
Subject: Will the Real Third Presidential Candidate Please Stand Up!
Organization:  Thomas Jefferson Universtiy
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:09:00 GMT

From:  David J. Kernen
I'm passing on the following:
 
To:    All Libertarians and anyone else who wants to see the media
       cover the Marrou/Lord Campaign.
 
From:  Steve Givot
 
Re:    What to do to make this happen
 
Date:  October 2, 1992
 
 
IT IS TIME TO GET OFF OUR COLLECTIVE BEHINDS AND DO SOMETHING TO
MAKE THIS HAPPEN.  IN THE LAST 24 HOURS A LOT HAS HAPPENED IN THE
CAMPAIGN.  MOST NOTABLY, WITH PEROT'S ENTRY, THE MEDIA ARE TALKING
ABOUT THE "THREE CANDIDATES".  THIS MUST STOP.  PEROT IS SHOWING
ABOUT 7% IN THE POLLS---NOT MUCH BETTER THAN ANDRE.  YET HE IS GETTING
COVERAGE.
 
WE ARE ASKING YOU TO INVEST MONEY IN YOUR TELEPHONE BILL.  THE FOLLOWING
MESSAGE IS BEING SENT TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.  PLEASE
ACT ON IT.  PLEASE PASS IT ON.  PLEASE GET ON THE PHONE AND CALL THESE
PEOPLE.  PHONE CALLS ARE CHEAP.  DON'T WORRY ABOUT MAKING THEM ANGRY.
THAT IS THE OBJECTIVE.  LET THEM KNOW HOW ANGRY WE ARE AND DON'T STOP
CALLING UNTIL THEY START REPORTING THE TRUTH.
 
THE MEDIA HAS A HISTORY OF RESPONDING TO "PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS."  SO
LET'S GIVE THEM AN ELECTRONIC DEMONSTRATION THAT THEY WON'T FORGET!
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
It is crucial that ALL libertarians call the following
news organizations, OVER AND OVER, starting on Monday, October 5,
at 9AM EDT:
 
(1) to tell them you are angry,
 
(2) to demand that they stop being inaccurate and start to refer to
all FOUR nationwide candidates,
 
(3) to demand that they include the fourth nationwide candidate,
Andre Marrou, in all subsequent coverage.
 
 
        ABC TV Network News     (212)   456-1000
 
        CBS TV Network News     (212)   975-4321
 
        NBC TV Network News     (212)   664-4971
 
 
Call and keep calling the same people until they get the message that
you won't stop calling until they provide coverage. Make them know that
they cannot avoid this issue, and that we will not go away.
 
CALL TEN LIBERTARIANS THAT YOU KNOW AND PASS THIS ENTIRE MESSAGE ALONG
TO THEM.  WE HAVE STRENGTH IN OUR GROWING NUMBERS---LETS USE IT NOW.
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Kernen                        syvdk@tjuvm.bitnet (BITNET) or
"Insert standard disclaimers here."    syvdk@tjuvm.tju.edu (INTERNET)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Education (Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.)
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:58:09 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <ISBELL.92Sep30091546@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

> By the way, from where do the vouchers come?  Local taxes? State taxes?
> Federal taxes?

There are other aspects to this question that concern me.  A tax-supported
voucher involves the government taking money from you so that it can later
give it back to you for your own use.  This is frighteningly analogous to
the myth of "federal highway funds" -- you know, those funds that the feds
use to blackmail the states into surrendering sovereignity over questions such
as "what shall the drinking age be in our state?", "what shall the speed limit
be on our state highways?", and "shall we require our drivers to wear seat 
belts under penalty of law?"
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:55:35 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <ISBELL.92Oct2104440@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> |Have you been following what has happened in the past two years in
> |your own state, under Weld's "school choice" program? 
> 
> Nope.  I don't get into Mass politics--I hate this place with a deep
> passion that boils up from within my very soul.  Any pointers to where
> I might read up on this?

You could try the Boston Globe, but you would have to read it for a while.
Now that it's been in effect for two years, it's not the controversial issue 
it once was.  The most vocal argument of the "antis" is, "we want the cost
of transportation included so even the poorest people can ditch over the
border to the better school" (and if that's the ANTI-choice position, ...!)

> How did the "good" schools here deal with the sudden influx of
> students?  Did they already have the room or what?  Any pointers
> appeciated. 

I haven't heard of anybody getting turned away.  Not to say it didn't
happen, but apparently it was not an outcome of any reportable significance.

> |Vouchers free up the captive customers and eliminate the town monopoly.
> 
> I have always understood this.  I'm addressing the question of
> whether some customers (namely the ones who suffer most under this
> current system) will end up being "captive" anyway.  If that's the
> case, what do we do about them?  Nothing?

Do you always insist on discarding any proposal that doesn't solve 100% 
of the problem, in favor of maintaining the status quo that solves none 
of it?

The solution here is not to do what we have done, which is to lock equally 
into a school system people who have no choice and people who would
otherwise have a choice -- forcing the latter to subsidize not only poor
service to themselves, but poor service to the former.  Without some 
pressure put onto these school systems, they will continue to squander
vast investments grinding out nonviable product.  With pressure, they will
either reform or die.  As the recent Massachusetts experience with school
choice shows, there is no shortage of better-run schools waiting and eager
to do the job for their former students, for the same money.

> I understand basic economic theory (I'm not stupid), but I also
> understand that the gap between theory and reality is sometimes huge
> and unfortunately must be addressed.

Well, you're living smack in the middle of exactly the experiment we're
talking about, so take the opportunity to study the record.
-- 

cdt@pdp.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,alt.society.anarchy
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:02:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.091620.6641@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes:
}In article <1992Sep29.223953.26882@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
}>Because libertarians _define_ coercion to just mean physical coercion.
}>It's certainly true that being in a bad situation economically can lead
}>to you doing things that you don't want to do.
}
}Cops kicking in your door to search your house is coercion, rent-a-cops
}kicking in your door to search your house is not.  Oh, yeah, I forgot,
}you had a choice when you signed your employer's contract--you could
}sign it and give up rights, or you could starve.  

Don't be obtuse!  Let's list false assumptions here: 1) libertarians support
private police kicking in people's doors; 2) Most people will be in the
position of accepting such a deal or starving; 3) it's possible to change the
fact that an inevitable few people will be in this position; 4) there's some
better way to minimize this occurrence than laissez-faire.

This sort of sound-bite rhetoric is lightweight, insulting, and frustrating.

}Since, as most anarcho-capitalists keep saying, everyone should be 
}trying to take care of themselves, why shouldn't poor people try to
}set up a government that gives them leverage against corporations and
}the rich?

Because it won't be profitable.  Ask a superficial question, get a superficial
answer.


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." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: secsu@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ralph O. Clark)
Subject: Utopia is not an option
Summary:  hunh?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  2 Oct 1992 18:05 EST  

In article <1992Oct1.213415.2445@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes...
[stuff deleted]
>"Utopia is not an option".
>

Exactly what does this mean?
Possible interpretations:
	1) Nobody said that all problems would go away in Libertaria,
	so stop criticizing Libertaria for having some problems.

	2) Libertaria is the Right Thing to Do, so work for that goal
	even if problems arise.

	3) ???

Also, where does the phrase come from? I've seen it many times in
the groups frequented by libertarians.

Ralph
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:34:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.211553.26045@vela.acs.oakland.edu> wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
>Question to the "anarcho"-capitalists and "libertarians" at large:
>Whence the seemingly unshakeable faith in the inability of the private
>sector to coerce?

Do we have such a faith?  I don't.  I think we will have come a long
ways if we eliminate the worst and most common form of coercion, 
the initiation of force.  "Utopia is not an option".

>Seems to me in a buyers' market or sellers' market the sellers or
>buyers respectively get the short end of the deal.  Market leverage is
>Power.

No such thing as a pure buyer's or seller's market.  Nothing
wrong with power, if gained and weilded without use of force.

>I have a positive attitude about exchanging equal value for equal value,
>IF I can approach my adversary on an equal footing.

No such thing as "equality" in any system, except equality with
respect to a set of abstract rights.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:34:30 GMT

parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>No, that's not what I mean.  There is a real immediate cost to enter a market,
>higher for some markets than for others.  It's entirely possible that this
>cost exceeds the value of ALL projected future profit.  So it's not a small
>profit in the future, but rather a net loss.  The further away each
>projected profit, the less it's worth.  A little common sense should let
>you see that this series must be convergent, otherwise all ventures would
>have an infinite immediate value.  What you say holds true in most cases,
>but can break down in markets with high start-up costs.

If the start-up costs are so high that someone cannot start-up and still
turn a profit enough to justify the start-up, at current prices, then
the prices are not too high.  That simple.  In other words, your
hypothetical is not valid, in general.

That's not to say that Libertarionism would allow everyone to afford heat,
but neither does what we have today.  Remember, utopia is not an option.

Besides, I live in South Florida.  Who needs heat? :)
From: John C. Mallery <jcma@ai.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform
Subject: MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:39:08 GMT

A MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches is
now available. If you would like a copy (800K / 1 disk), please send a
note to Michael (msagosta@cs.unlv.edu), who along with JBLIII authored
the Mac stack.

John Mallery
Join the Clinton/Gore '92
         Volunteer Email Campaign
Send To: CLINTON-WINS@Mail.Clinton-Gore.ORG
Subject: Volunteer Info