HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Date: 10 Jan 93 03:42:24 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <1993Jan10.013213.12946@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.133237.25879@samba.oit.unc.edu>
>bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes: 
>>[Text by Ervan Durnell describing book and metal plate deleted]
>>
>>	Ok, I do see where we diverge.  Lets assume that was not a book on
>>your lawn but an unpublished manuscript.  that puts us in the context of
>>no agreement.  I would tend to hold, that you have the right to use the
>>paper (burn it, scrap paper, doggee litter...) but not to read the book. 
>>Its my belief that intellectual property must not use possesion as an
>>argument for ownership.  The intellectual analogy to ownership in
>>intellectual property is ownership of the rights to the work, not a copy
>>of the work.
>
>I dunno about this Jeff.  Are you really saying that if I find an
>unpublished manuscript in my front yard, I don't have the right to
>read it.  Who have I harmed by reading it anyway?  The author?  I
>would argue that my rights as a property owner outweigh her
>intellectual rights as an author...
>
>O.K., you ask, where would I draw the line?  I'd say I have the right
>to read it, the right to lend it out to friends, the right to put
>parts of it in my .sig, etc.  However, I _don't_ have the right to
>publish it under my name.  That's the only clear instance I can think
>of right now where her intellectual property rights outweigh my
>physical property rights...  
>
>-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
>       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)

	Are you regecting the notion of intellectual property, ie. woning
a copy of a book is owning the book; or what arguemtn are you making.  If
you have the right to publish the book, without her consent, then why not
the right to sign your own name to it.  Why draw the line there at all.  
	
--JMB
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3232 comp.org.eff.talk:8474 soc.culture.usa:9615 alt.activism:20211
From: cg18fdh@icogsci1.ucsd.edu (Kyle Haight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Summary: Is this kidnapping?
Keywords: property, economic abuse
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:40:47 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1993Jan8.163516.4229@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

>Here is a grossly simplifed example:  Joe Richguy wants my land, and I 
>refuse to sell.  So joe buys all of the land around my land and forbids me 
>to trespass unless I sell.  Thus, _I_ am forced to sell my land or live in 
>isolation.

>How does libertarianism address this?  I can't seem to puzzle it through.

There seem to be two standard libertarian responses to this case.  The first
is to view the situation as one that develops due to a failure on your part to
secure permanent access to your own property.  I find this response somewhat
problematic myself, partly because it seems so counterintuitive that you could
"own" a piece of property and yet be legally barred from making any use of it.
In the case described, Joe Richguy has arguably deprived you of any real
ownership rights to your property.

Another approach to this sort of a situation can be seen by asking how the
case of Joe Richguy and the poor landowner differs from a specific type of
kidnapping.  Suppose, for example, that Joe's brother Fred Richguy owns an
apartment building.  You rent an apartment from Fred, one with no outside
windows.  (It's a cheap apartment.)  To get out of the building, you have to
go into the hall and use the elevator.  Your rental contract does not
expressly permit you to travel through the hallway or to use the elevator.
Fred calls you up one day and informs you that you are not permitted to use
the hallway, because you don't own it.  You are now trapped in your apartment
and cannot legally leave it.  Question: Has Fred kidnapped you?

Kyle Haight
khaight@ucsd.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:21:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <C0LzHv.2s5@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

>>*You're* forgetting something: an expanding economy.  Also, the efficiency
>>inherent in people paying for things they value, instead of forcing them
>>to pay more for what they absolutely must have.
>
>???  Like loaves of bread...

Hate to break it to you, but agricultural policies over here increase the 
prices of our foods. Cool huh? Thank God for government intervention.

>>I just don't understand people arguing *against* the idea that Americans
>>should be free to make the best bargains possible.
>
>Because *some* people making the best bargains possible means that
>lots of others end up a lot worse off.

Total crap. This is the essence of capitalism, and in the "capitalist"
countries there is higher prosperity for everyone. If this were the case, 
capitalism would never have gotten off the ground. You don't know what you 
are talking about.

>>From 1750 to the early 1900s, the U.S. experienced unprecedented economic
>>boom.  It absorbed millions of imigrants, and had the 'mechanism', if you
>>will, to give them a better life than they had at home, and give their
>>kids a better life than most any other people on the planet.  During this
>>time, there was minimal government intervention in markets, minimal
>>government intervention into private life, no federal reserve, no drug
>>prohibition, no charity beyond private charity, no income tax, no minimum
>>wage, no government schools, etc etc etc.
>
>There was, of course, massive government intervention to provide
>cheap property (and the natural resources that go with it).

Of course. I see it all now. Only the great god State could ever provide
for land. Brother.

>>The closest thing ever to a libertarian state, and it was an unprecedented
>>success.  Not perfect, but so amizingly good that people all over the world
>>slaved there lives away in the hope of coming here one day.
>
>Because of cheap land.

Because of cheap land? Are you serious? The mechanism of the market had no
effect on prosperity? 

Hard work in creating capital had nothing to do with it? Trying to produce
the best cheapest goods for the masses had nothing to do with it?

Of course not!!!!!!

I shouldn't believe this converstation is happening, but I guess I do.

How could anything ever happen without the government providing everything
for everyone...who knows! Thank God for the Leviathan.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)




Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3038 comp.org.eff.talk:8333 alt.amateur-comp:484 soc.culture.usa:9471 alt.activism:20075
From: damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 5 Jan 1993 21:36:07 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher-gw.caltech.edu

In article <1ic9pvINNt8@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
[lots deleted]
>
>Yes, but that large middle class was a product of pre-industrial government
>subsidy: ever hear of the Homestead Act?  And its long list of predecessors?
..
>public education.  Giving small allotments of farmland away for free is a
>subsidy that has seldom been replicated.
>
	Which raises a question I have never even seen addressed.  How 
would a libertarian society handle the distribution of resources that no
one initially owned?  Modern example, what happens to the Moon and the 
asteroid belt, when we start mining them?  Right now no one can claim to
own any of it.  Would it be 1st come, 1st serve?  I read D. Friedman's 
_The_Machinery_of_Freedom_ recently and enjoyed it; but I notice that he
starts out partly by saying in effect that his book will describe a society
where all the resources are initially allocated as property with well-defined
owners (private or government).  In the USA the West was seized by the govern-
ment and then distributed.  What happens in anarcho-capitalism?  Or might
global minarchy be necessary to handle just this?
>
>You set a standard for government that private industry won't meet either.
>Let's ask a tobacco company to declare itself to be "superfluous and harmful
>and that it should be eliminated."  Isn't it funny: both know they have
>constituencies.
>
	In a free market we don't have to give companies money (ignoring
chemical addiction).  We have no such option regarding government "services".

			-- Damien R. Sullivan  [X-) Kiljoy]
42 | AIXELSYD | Phoenix (Brand shall return to Amber!) | Neo-anarchy now!
Just because it's been done before doesn't mean it's right. | "Nee!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:21:45 GMT

In article <1ifet6INN3a4@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.151520.20299@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>>In article <1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>>No, we don't see.  Because we can no more see libertarian governments than
>>>we can see heaven.  You sound just like a communist promising the withering
>>>away of the state, or a Christian promising heavenly rule, or a cargo-cultist
>>>propitiating the great silver birds.
>>
>>Or a demopublican promising deficit reductions?
>
>As a percentage of GNP, there have been major deficit reductions during the
>Eisenhower and Carter administrations.

i can't speak for Eisenhower, but i don't buy your claim or its implications
re Carter. care to provide some numbers? 

my numbers show a total deficit during Carter's years as $227 billion,
comparable to the total deficits rung up by Johnson, Nixon and Ford
*combined* over three times as many years.

>The USA has always had a national debt (excepting 1835-6).  The last balanced
>budget passed was submitted by Lyndon Johnson-- that big-spending, Great
>Society liberal.  :-)

that one year abberation is insignificant. we are talking a whole $6 billion.
whoopie. clinton will spend that during his first morning job around the
white house.

in the meantime, the policies Johnson initiated are largely responsible
for the doo-doo we are in 25 years later. which is several orders of
magnitude larger than that $6B.


>Mike Huben
>
>"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
>						George Santayana
>
>"Those who misremember the past are pleased to repeat it as `proof'."
>						Mike Huybensz

"Those who would be disproven by the past are pleased to ignore it."
                                                Charles Kozierok
                                                (and many others too, i'm sure)

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sals@random.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:52:35 GMT

In article <1isv15INNcv5@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike  
Huben) writes:
> In article <1993Jan11.194142.8067@kadsma.kodak.com>  
pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes: > >Some might object that  
the best schools will still be the most expensive,
> >and that there will be talented students who will be excluded from the
> >best schools simply because their parents can't pay. I can only suggest
> >that we've managed to deal with this problem where post-secondary
> >education is concerned (i.e., scholarships, loans, etc.). Why couldn't
> >the same ideas work at the lower grades?
> 
> Because the students aren't distributed among the well off, the way they  
are
> in colleges (for one.)   Instead, the poor are primarily concentrated  
into
> inner city schools.  Thus, you'd need entire schools funded by your  
methods.
> Not to mention the joy of graduating grade school with a sizeable loan.
> Why don't you just propose a return to indentured servitude?
> 

The poor are primarly concentrated in inner city schools because  
government funded schools are given a geographic mononoply. Despite  
massive government interference with higher education there are no  
geographic monoplies. Your point about the poor being concentrated in  
inner cities schools would not be necessarly true in a free market  
environment. And BTW please spell out your objections to indentured  
servitude or a modern equivalent? Why shouldn't a person who has received  
money for education work to pay it back?
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Sapphire on Libertarianism
Date: 8 Jan 1993 00:48:34 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1ifv8oINNmbj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan) writes:

> William Sapphire in a recent editorial called Brian Mulroney's
> advocation of criminalizing the interception and de-encryption
> of private sendings "libertarian." I believe because libertarianism
> bases everything on property rights and the declaration of 
> these acts as violating property rights must therefore be      
> libertarian.   

> As a voluntarist, I think Mulroney and Sapphire, who agrees
> with Mulroney, are advocating infrining on my property rights
> by telling me what I can and can't intercept using my own
> private equipment--(or someone else's authorized for such
> use). 

Nope, he didn't say that.  What he said was not that you could not
intercept the signal, but that you could not disclose it to others.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Sapphire on Libertarianism
Date: 7 Jan 1993 19:23:25 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu

bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

| cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan) writes:

| > [bit about Sapphire misunderstanding libertarianism]

| 	I think it depends on what you consider to be property.  Clearly
| the air is public property.  Clearly the radio signal... is public.  Is
| the content of the radio signal public though?  I would think not, that is
| the whole basis of intelectual property.  Otherwise, would a station lose
| all rights to a show just because they broadcast it publically?

Clearly the air is common property, although the air in my house is my
property.  _Broadcasting_ in the air, because (with current technology)
only one entity can broadcast at one frequency in a region, is private
property--the fact that the current government has confiscated all
of it notwithstanding.

However, if someone puts something in my property (e.g., she broadcasts
a signal into the antenna in my radio receiver), it is mine.  What is
broadcast, being intellectual property, is not mine, but the right to
receive the broadcast is indeed mine.

It is exactly the same story as someone hanging a free newspaper on
your doorknob.  That paper is yours to read.  But you cannot reuse the
articles it contains contrary to the intellectual property rights of
the authors.  If the publisher doesn't want you to read the articles,
she must either encrypt the articles, or not hang the paper on your
door.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3444 comp.org.eff.talk:8642 alt.amateur-comp:578 soc.culture.usa:9743 alt.activism:20495
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 13 Jan 1993 00:10:08 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1il10qINN7l5@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
> In article <1ikte5INNlpt@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >In article <1ikjvuINN7b0@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

> >> If you were born here, then your parents freely made the choice for you.
> >> At any time, you can select another nation to live in.  There is no secret
> >> about the fact that if you choose to live here you must abide by the laws:
> >> every immigrant explicitly agrees to that.

> >> A contractual requirement of residing in the USA is paying taxes.  You've
> >> entered into the contract freely (as I pointed out above.)  Non payment of
> >> taxes is fraud which you have initiated, plain and simple.

> >Now I remember where I heard this argument before.  It was advanced by a
> >greasy-haired fellow with wide lapels in my uncle's drycleaning shop just
> >shortly before the unfortunate fire.

> Amusing, but stupid.

> One purpose of any government (minarchist, anarchist, or our current one) is
> to prevent you from having to buy protection from more than one source.
> I'm afraid you're going to have to pay for it no matter what under a minarchy,
> and if you try not to pay for it in an anarchy, woe betide.

> Now, would you like to explain to me how you can do without the protection of
> a government in libertaria?

The whole point is choice.  You buy protection from the supplier of your
choice -- you don't have it handed to you with a large price tag saying 
"OR ELSE."
-- 

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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 10 Jan 93 03:30:35 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
> >> Ooops, we got rid of them mostly...(and I don't mean anarchy, who? 
> >
> >pardon me, but are you just acting obtuse or are you this way naturally?
> >libertarians don't want anarchy!
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Who is being obtuse???

huzzah, Mr. Shein! you cut an entire article into 2 tiny fragments, 
ignores the relevant parts, and proceed to utilize that terribly 
effective ad hom. method of argument. truely, your powers of reason 
are astonishing.

if i were optimistic i'd think that you've finally taken my statement
(the one you emphasized) to heart, have realized that your whole argument
depends on believing the opposite & are now simply throwing a tantrum
to save face. but comments like

> Look you brainless wonder... 

make it clear that you're merely an ordinary twit.

a good flame war is fun, but i've made the mistake of trying to
address issues when you'd like to repeat dogma and engage it witty
repartee. well, score one for you. i think you'll go quite far
with your new-found fame. actually, i'm certain you will: straight
into my killfile. g'day.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`        Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty        `,` 
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The World
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:44:29 GMT


From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
>bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>> From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
>> >I don't want big companies to be responsible to repair damages they
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >make.  Currently the government taxes us, using guns if necessary, 
>> >to pay into environmental clean-up funds.  Libertarians would have 
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >wanted to have Exxon to pay for all the clean-up of their actions.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> Huh?
>
>great retort. what is it that you don't understand?

Look you brainless wonder, there was a serious typo in Schmidt's
original statement up there which he later corrected.

Try reading for comprehension.

Otherwise, you're a waste of time...ta ta.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: mek@acs.bu.edu (Mark Kern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:41:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <6ZR7wB1w165w@entropy.mcds.com> morpheus@entropy.mcds.com (morpheus) writes:
>positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:
>
>> >Here is a grossly simplifed example:  Joe Richguy wants my land, and I
>> >refuse to sell.  So joe buys all of the land around my land and forbids me 
>> >to trespass unless I sell.  Thus, _I_ am forced to sell my land or live in 
>> >isolation.
>> 

This won't work.  You will always have right of way to enter and exit your
land, even if it requires you to "trespass" over some other land.  You can just
go ahead and do it, if the guy gives you any problems, you can get a court to
grant you an easement over his land.

I missed the orginal article.  What was the point anyways?
 
-=Simms=-
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3295 comp.org.eff.talk:8525 soc.culture.usa:9664 alt.activism:20272