HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 08:25:46 PST

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?

Normally, yes.  But in law enforcement, we generally "make the punishment
fit the crime."  If you make the assumption that a fetus is human life, then
you are imposing the death penalty for a "crime" in which (a) the "criminal"
does not have malicious intent; and (b) the severity of the "crime" clearly
doesn't warrant the death penalty.  So in your theoretical example, I think
that abortion is not justified.  I feel that it *can't* be justified if (and I
emphasize IF) you feel that an unborn child has the same rights as an already
born human being.

Besides, there are real-life parallels to your example.  What of the man who
is forced to pay 18 years of child support for a child he didn't ever want?
Can the man defend himself against the judge who forces him to pay against his
will?


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
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: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:57:41 GMT

In article <1ifvjfINN3oi@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.212145.22496@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>>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? 
>
>According to an article in the Boston Globe citing Office of Management and
>Budget figures:
>	The highest percentage ever reached was 122% of GNP in 1945.
>	It reached a postwar low of 33% of GNP in 1981.
>	By 1992, it had reached (estimated) 67% of GNP.

these numbers are misleading. i don't think they imply any "major
deficit reductions".

>>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.
>
>Obviously the GNP has grown, due to both inflation and real growth.

and of course inflation was pretty high during Carter's administration.

>>>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.
>
>According to the same article, 8 balanced budgets were passed since 1931.

irrelevant. most of them were far closer to 1931 than to 1993.

>Your hyperbole about Clinton is besides the point.

as is yours about Johnson.

>>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.
>
>Clearly (from the numbers cited in the article above) the doubling of the
>national debt as a percentage of the GNP took place under the auspices of
>Reagan and Bush.

they were both very bad. but they share the blame with their predecessors,
particularly Johnson, who initiated the entitlement programs which
are now responsible for the major part of the current mess. and the $6B
surplus occurred in '69, which was actually the first year of Nixon's
reign, no?

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:47:13 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <C0LzHv.2s5@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:

[...]
>>Yea, we see that now with computers, don't we?  There once was a time when a
>>slow IBM PC with 256K RAM and two floppies cost $3,000.  Now that demand is
>>so high, the same machine is selling for $250,000.
>
>>Not.
>
>Yeah, and in the same period the prices of services like education
>and medical care, and products like bread and water, also fell by
>orders of magnitude thanks to technological innovation.  Right.

Thanks to government intervention, you mean.  Grain, water, and 
medical care have been increasingly regulated in the past 12 years.
To what end?

>>*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...

Of course, we pay artificially high prices for loaves of bread, because
of the ridiculous grain subsidies.  Thank the USDA and Congress for 
that!

Quite ironic that a gallon of gas costs half as much as a gallon
of milk, isn't it?

>>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.

Aha!  I *knew* that you were a Marxist-in-disguise.  Playing the
zero-sum game with us, are you?

>>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.

If it weren't for the US government, it wouldn't have cost anything.
Oh, well, that cost was necessary, so the US government could go out
and slaughter "Injuns" by the millions.  

I feh on you.

cpk
-- 
"The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only.  If you gotta load or un-
load, go to the WHITE ZONE.  You'll love it.  It's a way of life!" --Zappa

Technology always seems to keep one step ahead of human wisdom.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: bzs@world.std.com's message of Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:25:11 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<BZS.93Jan11202511@world.std.com>
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:40:44

In article <BZS.93Jan11202511@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

> But it seems to also be a function of current govt that libertarians
> (case by case) have a lot of problems with. Particularly when they're
> held accountable in advance (e.g. regulatory functions.)

"Accountable in advance" has such a nice Orwellian ring to it.
Some might find the phrase "prior restraint" more descriptive,
however.  Like the new prior-to-the-deed "restitution" tax on
digital tapes and equipment, for example.  And let's not forget
the RICO and civil forfeiture laws.  Advance accountability at
its shining best?

=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Sapphire on Libertarianism
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:19:54 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

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

	Other than the disagreement about whether the air in your house is
your property or not (which is a pretty unimportant issue) where does your
position diverge from mine?

-JMB
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:38:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <93007.041202U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> David James Alexander Hanley <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>  I find it suprising that this abortion conversation is taking place in
>a liberterian forum, yet sounds like it does.
>
>  An anology:  A person moves into your house.  He eats your food, he
>drinks your water.  He makes life inconvienent and expensive for you.
>Yet, if you force him to leave, he will die.  Are you allowed to force him
>to leave?  According to liberterian reasoning, I beleive the answer must be
>yes.  I also think that the mother/fetus is the same situation.

you may not have been paying attention here. i am the one who has been
promoting that position, but the counter-argument is worthy of consideration.
that counter-argument is based upon who caused the person who moved into
the house to be in the position where they must either stay there or die.
in order to support your position, you must extend your analogy to the
case where the owner of the house owes a duty of care to the one who
moves in. in fact, i believe this exact analogy was hashed out here not
too long ago.

>  Of course, in situations where the father leaves the mother I am curious
>as to what the accepted liberterian standpoint is.  Should the father be
>compulsed to pay his share?  Should the mother assume the burden?  Should
>the state( if it exists ) step in?  All of these present problems.

yup.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Sapphire on Libertarianism
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 07:37:33 PST

In <1ifv8oINNmbj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, Edmund Joseph Ryan writes:

>Greetings,

>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.

Well, I think Safire's stretching on this one.  Let's assume that we're talk-
ing about (for example) airwaves carrying a premium or pay-per-view signal for
television.  If I went on to the broadcaster's property and rigged a device
which allowed mine to function, then yes, we do have a criminal act (trespass
at the least, and perhaps more).  If the airwaves tresspass into *my* property
and my satellite dish just happens to pick them up, then too bad.  The sender
had no rights to send the airwaves over my land anyway.

>For clarification, Mulroney referred to anything sent via the
>electromagnetic spectrum from which one could intercept without
>trespassing or physical sabotage of some sort. It seems the
>"libertarian" conservative misconstrued what libertarians mean
>by property or has he?

I think that "property" should be defined a little more tangibly than that.  We
can get very abstract about what is "property" and what isn't.  The only ex-
ception I see is for patents on intellectual property.

>What is the prevailing view on this among the libertarian folk
>(which I consider part of)? Do minarchists and voluntarists
>hold different views?

>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).

I agree--as long as we can distinguish between "active interception" and
"passive interception."  In active interception, I have to the source of the
signal and tamper with it so I can receive it.  That is wrong.  In a passive
interception, I just set up the satellite dish on *my own* property.  I didn't
ask for the airwaves to hit my dish and I didn't force the sender to send the
waves into my dish.  No crime there in my opinion.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3018 comp.org.eff.talk:8298 alt.amateur-comp:467 soc.culture.usa:9448 alt.activism:20031
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: 4 Jan 1993 22:09 CST
Organization: GrinchCo
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan4.143130.812@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes...
 >a wonderful summing up!  libertarianism as the ideology of the
 >frustrated children of the elite.  of course, none of the randites
 >believes in society (as has been painfully demonstrated on this
 >network), so making an argument, however sensible and consistent,
 >  about libertarianism as being cultivated by socio-economic variables
 >rather than the incredible reasoning powers of a few gifted bootstrap-pulling 
 >horatio algers is bound to fall on deaf (and hostile) ears.
 >still, nice job, mr. shein.  expect, as you anticipate, dozens of
 >replies from "lower class libertarians" (who of course toiled their
 >"self-defeating ethic" of the underclass into which they were
 >born) who will see in their social
 >point of origin a refutation of your argument because they aren't
 >quite prepared to admit that in a libertarian society there'd be
 >no school loans, scholarships, etc. for people like them and so
 >they'd be preaching the religion of the mighty and asocial
 >individual while sweeping up the shit in the rich folks' back yard.
 > 
 >tristan
> 
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
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: Fri, 8 Jan 93 16:52:16 GMT

pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
: : 
: : Well, for starters there's the Exxon Valdez...I hear Exxon makes quite
: : a bit of money. But one can quibble that I suppose, so how about the
: : organized crime types who were picking up toxic waste and dumping it
: : off on road sides when no one was looking? I hear they made millions
: : posing as legitimate toxic waste removal services.
: 
: I don't want big companies to be responsible to repair damages they
: make.

OOPS!!!!!!!!  I said the exact opposite of what I meant.  It should read:
"I WANT big companies to be responsible to repair damages they make."
Sorry for any misunderstanding this may have caused to a reader.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3255 comp.org.eff.talk:8490 soc.culture.usa:9633 alt.activism:20229
From: edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:27:45 GMT
Organization: RAND

In article <1993Jan7.233259.25877@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes:
>Libertarians ignore "the deeply irrational vagaries of human nature"?
>Like Greed?  Like selfishness?  Like territoriality?  Just the opposite.
>Libertarianism is the political philosophy that embraces these things
>and recognizes the paradoxical utility of such vagaries and the fact
>that they exist along side other human traits such as love, charity, 
>and forgiveness in the crazy quiltwork of society.  Libertarians love
>complexity and a future that is totally inscrutable and are not afraid of
>such a future as long as fraud and the initiation of force have been 
>banished from human relations.

Wow!  This sounds like a religion, not a political ideology.  Eliminate
government coercion and all that selfish, territorial greed will mix in a
marvelously complex way with love, charity, and forgiveness, resulting
in A Better World(tm).  You'll have about as much chance convincing me
of this as you will of virgin birth.

> Our quarrel with the societal entity
>commonly called government is that it commits wholesale initiation of 
>force - based on "empirical observations".  Will a libertarian society
>have great inequities?  Will it have destroyed and broken people?  Yes,
>most likely, at times.  These things are certainly possible where there
>is no force or fraud.

And how does eliminating government coercion eliminate force or fraud?
Individuals are just as capable of violence and deception, and can
claw their way to power, making whatever coalitions necessary along
the way.  You've failed to show how government of necessity makes things
worse (and I freely admit it doesn't, of necessity, make things better).

> And it is almost certain that society will
>continue to change.  The libertarian notion is that as society changes,
>in order for it to be civilized, the ethic of no initiation of force
>or fraud must be at its foundation.

This begs the question, big time!  Who is it who prevents the initiation
of force or fraud?  What's to prevent some non-libertarian heathen from
amassing enough force to /make/ a government?  Do you know something
about human nature I don't?

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:39:02 GMT

In article <1icddbINNvp@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>Nobody is compelling Joe Richguy to do anything: he has chosen to live in the
>USA and abide by our government.

Ah!  You, too, have chosen to live here.  So shut up and like it already.

>Nobody is pointing a gun at him and commanding him to stay here where by
>mutual agreement we are taxed.

Well, at one point, we agreed to a *temporary* income tax, yes...

>Joe Richguy has now benefitted, since I have by now already repaid (through
>taxes on my greater earnings) those subsidies, and can now better share
>supporting the costs of society with him.

Yes, comrad, we all live together in harmony.

What if we all got to spend our money on things we value?  Society's
scarce resources would naturally be directed towards producing those things.
People would be attracted to those services and industries.  Inventors
would turn their talents to those things.  There just can't be a better
way to allocate resources.

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: The anarchist/minarchist issue
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:26:21 GMT

In article <ARCHER.699.726779272@utkvm1.utk.edu>, ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
|> You appear to be confusing libertarianism with anarchy.  While some 
|> libertarians are anarchists, it is unreasonable to generalize this to all 
|> libertarians.  No one denies that some government is necessary to prevent 
|> individuals from using force and/or fraud to coerce others.

Your last two sentences are contradictions.  Anarchists *do* deny that
some government is necessary.  However, I regret that so many
minarchists believe they have to distance themselves from voluntarists
to be credible.

Think of government (others government) as cancer and self government as
cancer cures.  There are all kinds of cancer, and few medical
researchers even dream of our curing or preventing all cancer in their
lifetimes, but we all agree that it would be a good thing if it were
possible.  There are some idealistic medical researchers that believe
the dream is possible in their lifetime and they're working to that
goal.  Some other medical researchers might laugh and say they're
wasting their time when they could be working on some good treatments or
early detection methods instead of wasting time on a fantasy, but most
of us would think "good for them -- people with vision!" And "cancer
minimalists" researchers realize a lot of work done by the "cancer
abolishment" researchers is useful for both camps.

So it should be with anarchists/minarchists.  I don't know how much self
government is possible, but I know we've never had too much.  I know
humans always migrate from countries with less to countries with more
self government.  I know countries with more self government are more
productive and hence enjoy a higher standard of living than countries
with less self government.  Maybe 100% self government is possible,
maybe it isn't.  The difference between wanting 95% self government and
100% is not enough to warrant the division that exists among
libertarians on this issue.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3078 comp.org.eff.talk:8367 soc.culture.usa:9509 alt.activism:20115