HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:00:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.220258.852@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) writes:
>> 	Theory question: Assume that the fetus is a human being with full
>> liberties.  Suppose that the woman bearing the fetus did not wish 
>> to be pregnant and does not wish to support it.  Does she have a 
>> right to defend herself against the fetus's forcing her to support 
>> it?
>
>theory answer: nope. the fetus is not initiating force. if there is
>"force" involved it is the result of her own (and her partner's) actions.
>therefore, -she- is the one responsible for the situation, not the fetus,
>and the responsibility for the consequences should be assigned as such.

that depends very much upon your definition of "force", doesn't it?
for example, if another adult did to a woman's body what a fetus does to
it, there is no doubt in my mind that it would be considered force and
the woman would have the right to remedy the situation. i would say
she does as well in the fetus situation.

i have a friend who compared a pregnancy to a parasitic infection.
i was repulsed at this comparison, and don't share his view, but when
i sat down to argue against it, i found it quite difficult to refute.
the fetus *is* living off its mother, much as a parasite lives off its host.
the only real counter-argument i had related to responsibility of
creation of the fetus; in that the analogy fails, but only sometimes.
what if the mother had every reason to believe conception was impossible?

i welcome any arguments you folks out there might have.

(P.S. no labels, please -- me wife and i are actually expecting, and
i am quite happy about it!!)

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:32:37 GMT

[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your lawn but an unpublished manuscript.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.
	So I guess my anology for the book droppping on your lawn would be
an uncopyrighted manuscript.  This you could do with what you want,
including read, sell....
	As for your questions regarding broadcast:
1)  the police have the right to listen to open air broadcasting.  You
forgo all privacy rights by broadcasting.  They would not have the right
to de-encrypt a broadcast without a warrent however, since you the owner
are no longer giving permission to the casual listener to listen (implied
by encrypting the message).

2)  Just becasue radar plate is on your property does not give you the
right to "Jam" a signal.  It's similar to a hazardous factory on your
property.

--JMB


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: Netcom
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:31:33 GMT

In article <1iviujINNpqc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an127@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Korac MacArthur) writes:
>
>	How about this abuse of economic power:  another huge recession
>hits, jobs get axed and there is mass unemployment and poverty.  The
>unemployed slobs were to stupid to draw up a clause in their contracts
>about jobless benefits, so they are on the streets and starving.  
>Joe Richguy cares not a whit and since there is no more govt. coercion,
>doesn't do anything for his dying ex-employees.  Not enough people care
>to help, so there is 3rd world conditions in many major cities.  Then
>what?   People deserve the right to starve?    I'm sorry no, not if
>humanity has any meaning other than species.   I like libertarianism's
>ideas, but it also needs some social conscience.

Does this mean you believe that all private-sector insurance programs
(health care, life, home, auto) and all private-sector charity
programs (United Way, etc.) should be socialized, with mandatory
participation by all?  If not, which programs should be socialized,
and which should be handled in the private sector, and why?

Just curious...

Hans Lachman
lachman@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:12:20 GMT

In article <1ibd41INNt0t@network.ucsd.edu> triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley) writes:
>In article <4JAN199322094401@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>>Perhaps a reason your clever arguments as to why libertarians are "randites"
>>fails is because libertarians are for the most part not randites and they
>>know they aren't randites.  Also,  your argument that "lower class 
>>libertarians" don't count because they shouldn't be libertarians is utterly 
>>hollow,  not to mention insulting.  Can it be true that you actually think 
>>that's a valid argument?
>>
>>Mr. Grinch
>
>mr. grinch, huh? ok...i never said "lower class libertarians don't
>count" (whatever that means), that's all yours.  i said libertarians
>whatever their class origin (especially those who post to this
>network) tend to believe in utterly nonsensical
>conceptions of human agency, have little demonstrated understanding
>of social construction and cultural relativity and therefore draw
>rather simplistic (and often ridiculous) conclusions as to how
>society works.  that's all. 

As opposed to the fine job being done by our current batch
of highly educated, morally fibrous, socially responsible,
and culturally (PC anyway) sensitive politicians?

<*Snort*> <*chortle*> <*hee* *hee*> Bwahhahahahahahahahahahaha!
<*gasp* *gasp* *snork* *snort* *chortle*..........>


-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 13:00:31 GMT

edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes:
: 
: I agree--I think he is very insightful as to why libertarianism is
: attractive to programmers.  It exceeds even Marxism in developing a
: logically consistant conceptual model of society.  However, the ability
: to develop and mentally analyze such a model of social interaction
: doesn't mean that such a model is accurate or complete.  Social theories
: which ignore the deeply irrational vagarities of human nature or consign
: them to a heap of undesirable traits are destined to fail.  One good set
: of empirical observations are worth thousands of exquisitely crafted and
: self-consistent theories.

I want a theory that does not ignore erratic human behavior also.  Other
than an impossible Utopia, libertarianism comes closest to acknowledging
this fact.  Along with liberals, libertarians agree that erratic
behavior should be tolerated as long as it harms no one else.  With
conservatives they agree that economic behavior should be left to each
individual, as long as no fraud or coersion is involved.  And it is this
recognition of erratic behavior that sets it apart from authoritarians,
who think that those in power will defy the human nature by acting
rationally for the best interest of the governed instead of
"irrationally".  Libertarianism is the best theory for acknowledging
this about human nature.
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:18:06 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan8.133237.25879@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

> 1)  the police have the right to listen to open air broadcasting.  You
> forgo all privacy rights by broadcasting.  They would not have the right
> to de-encrypt a broadcast without a warrent however, since you the owner
> are no longer giving permission to the casual listener to listen (implied
> by encrypting the message).

Given that a radio receiver is in itself nothing more than a decryption
device, and that a similar prosciption against people building their own
radio receivers is obviously ludicrous, a certain amount of intellectual
rigor is apparently missing from the chain of logic that leads to this
asssertion.
-- 

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
From: feathers@serss0 (Michael Feathers)
Subject: Radio signals are not "air(waves)" (was Re: Sapphire on Libertarianism)
Organization: Florida International University, Miami
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 15:46:37 GMT

In article <1iil2dINNb5p@cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu> peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>
>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.
>

I agree. My only caveat is that we talk about "air" and "air-waves" but 
those are not the media.  In fact, the media is immaterial.  We are talking 
about radio signals which are produced outbursts of particular frequencies.

We do not need to hypothesize conceptual boxes of air that extend above
a person's property line in order to talk about this.  The only property
right that I can discern would be the right to produce these outbursts within
a certain geographic area.  An absolutist would consider the capability to
recieve a signal (and therefore the inability to use that frequency oneself) 
on one's land, a form of trespass.  Call it signal trespass.  However, that is
only if we consider land and signal rights synonymous.  If we did, we would
effectively prohibit long distance communication by radio except by large
land-owners like Disney corporation.

If we consider that there is another form of property which exists at a level
other than land, we could say that it would be defined by frequency and 
geographical area.  Property rights could be sold for that package.  The
question which would remain is whether people on their own land could 
legally benefit from the use of the property of the radio owner.

This gets into a strange area.  In general, the law allows personal use.
For instance, it is okay to look at a football game if your apartment
overlooks the stadium, but you are not allowed to invite people over and
charge them for looking at the game.
















Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:16:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Organization: ASCI

>>>>> In article <SLAGLE.93Jan12022847@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
>>>>> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:

[Lots of stuff about Libertarianism, and politics]

I don't suppose if we ask real nice, we could get comp.org.eff.talk taken out
of the Newsgroups line of this arguement, and have people redirect followups
out of the group as well?  This seems to have left the arena where the EFF is
involved....

Bob
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:12:34 GMT

In article <1iviujINNpqc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an127@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Korac MacArthur) writes:

|> 	How about this abuse of economic power:  another huge recession
|> hits, jobs get axed and there is mass unemployment and poverty.  The
|> unemployed slobs were to stupid to draw up a clause in their contracts
|> about jobless benefits, so they are on the streets and starving.  
|> Joe Richguy cares not a whit and since there is no more govt. coercion,
|> doesn't do anything for his dying ex-employees.  Not enough people care
|> to help, so there is 3rd world conditions in many major cities.  Then
|> what?   People deserve the right to starve?    I'm sorry no, not if
|> humanity has any meaning other than species.   I like libertarianism's
|> ideas, but it also needs some social conscience.

There are many many people like you.  Would it help if I pointed out that
there are a lot fewer starving people on the streets of Hong Kong than
New York?  That _every_year_ since the "great society" legislation of
Johnson that there have been _more_and_more_ people eligible for welfare?

Some of us are Libertarians _because_ we have a social conscience.
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:11:17 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <11376@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>In article <CKD.93Jan5122519@loiosh.eff.org>, ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>|> As for America in the 50s, the G.I. Bill should also, IMHO, be considered a
>|> substantial government subsidy...
>Ah yes, the GI Bill.  I tried to go to college under the GI Bill in 1973.
>You would be amazed hard it is to stretch $250 a month.
>Some subsidy.  I ended out working in a factory and eventually back in the
>Army.

My father completed college on the GI Bill (which was rather outdated by the
70's: small wonder you had a hard time.)  Still, I made it through Cornell
on a similar amount of money.  When I started in the College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences in 1972, tuition was $600 for each of two semesters, and
my housing was $60/month.  I had a part-time job on campus to help me make
ends meet.  More economical housing was available if you lived in coops.

It wasn't easy.  But a $3000 scholarship was awfully hard to come by at that
time outside of the GI bill.  I made it on smaller STATE scholarships, working
20+ hours per week and summers, and occaisional small grants from my mother.

Mike Huben

"Education is what survives when what has been learnt has been forgotten."
						B. F. Skinner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher)
Subject: Santayana
Organization: Department of Economics, Univ of Minn
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:59:56 GMT

In article <1i7570INNq98@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.063235.4991@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>...  If there much more currency then
>>gold, then the currency isn't really backed in gold.  You can't back 5
>>trillion in dollars with 500 bil in gold.
>
>I took a few minutes in the library to look up the article under Gold Standard
>in the Encyclopaedia Americana.

An interesting source.
>
>"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
>						George Santayana

That's not quite what Santayana said; the famous quote is more like
"Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat
them."  But here's a more appropriate quote from everyone's favorite
fascist (perhaps not a Nazi, but a confirmed anti-Semite and a champion
of "The New Italy;" still, a good writer):

"The primary use of conversation is to satisfy the impulse to talk."

(From his novel _The Last Puritan_.)

--Jack Stecher
stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
--
A government big enough to give you all you want
is big enough to take it all away.
                        --Barry Goldwater
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3044 comp.org.eff.talk:8349 alt.amateur-comp:488 soc.culture.usa:9485 alt.activism:20087
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
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 21:06 CST
Organization: GrinchCo
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1ibd41INNt0t@network.ucsd.edu>, triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley) writes...
 > 
 >mr. grinch, huh? ok...i never said "lower class libertarians don't
 >count" (whatever that means), that's all yours.  i said libertarians
 >whatever their class origin (especially those who post to this
 >network) tend to believe in utterly nonsensical
 >conceptions of human agency, have little demonstrated understanding
 >of social construction and cultural relativity and therefore draw
 >rather simplistic (and often ridiculous) conclusions as to how
 >society works.  that's all. 

No.  You said that libertarians are "the frustrated children of the elite",
that if they took the time to examine their motivations they would realize 
they are libertarians BECAUSE they are "the frustrated children of the elite",
and you preemptively dismissed the "my family isn't ricj" argument as
irrelevant.  If you don't even read your own drivel,  why do you expect
anyone else to?

Mr. Grinch 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3447 comp.org.eff.talk:8645 soc.culture.usa:9745 alt.activism:20498
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:44:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <C0LywA.2n2@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
>
>[FDIC, S&L scam]
>>[Barry:]
>>> It WAS insurance, what are you talking about?

>Okay, so let's look at the biggest non-governmental insurance
>scheme, that claims to be actuarially sound: i.e. Lloyd's.
>Why is it that they are claiming that without governmental
>guarantees they could well go bankrupt, leaving so many
>billions of claims hanging in thin air?

Because they knew it would be there or they could ask for it if they 
screwed up.

>The point is that if they did so, as could happen in a libertarian
>scenario, there would be a lot of suffering; and, just like in
>the '30s, some politician would come along and say "Never again!
>We'll have a governmentally backed insurance scheme, so that
>(voting) paupers won't have to die of malnutrition again!"
>And you're back where you started...

Boy! Without emotivism, how would you start an argument? The pain and
suffering that not rewarding sloth bring about are unfortunately necessary,
to help prevent future sloth, and therefore reduce pain and suffering in
the future. You just guarantee more crap later. It is easy to cave in to
short term thinking, but man rose from the caves by means of long-term
thinking.

In a banking crisis situation, what the proper role of government would
be is to act as an arbitrator of contracts. The company would be
liquidated, and the bond holders compensated for their claims as much as
possible. 

Now I know this isn't perfect. However, it is infinitely better than giving
people the illusion that life is risk free. The more you remove the
consequences of risk, the more risks people take. It's a dangerous slippery
slope. 

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Date: 13 Jan 1993 00:46:33 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <clary.726765281@pv031e.vincent.iastate.edu>, clary@iastate.edu (Jeffrey S Clary) writes:

> A radio receiver is not a decryption device.  Encryption implies encoding
> information in such a way that, with a piece of data presumably known
> intended receivers (a key) the message can be decrypted easily, but without 
> that key the message can only be decrypted with great computational expense.  
> Radio signals are simply a public encoding of information for broadcast...
> no secret key is needed to decode it.

A point obviously lost on the designers of Explorer, who included the
critical "piece of data" needed to "decrypt" a common video disc.

Just because a code is well known doesn't mean it's not still a code.
-- 

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...