HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Social Darwinism
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:34:55 GMT

In article <1jkiu9INN3qr@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.181818.7315@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Daniel R Cosley) writes:
>>>Oh.  In that case, try living on a fraction of it.  After all, libertarians
>>>don't advocate a minimum wage law.  I hope all those low-wage jobs have
>>>good health benefits, or that you stay healthy.  After all, the world doesn't
>>>owe you a living, and if you're too sick to work, well....
>>>
>>>It's Social Darwinist attitudes like that which brought about socialism in
>>>reaction.
>>>
>>It's strange that attackers of libertarianism assume that libertarians don't 
>>care what happens to other people, the strong survive, etc.  I think that most 
>>libertarians believe very strongly in voluntary charity and freely exercised 
>>goodwill and compassion to other men.
>
>It doesn't matter what libertarians believe: there are a huge number of other
>people out there, who (if placed in a libertarian system) would gleefully
>watch other people starve while mouthing "the world doesn't owe them a living"
>as piously as Archer said the world doesn't owe him a living.  Those people
>are now providing charity and will receive it if and when they need it.

if no-one wants to feed them, and they can't or won't feed themselves, why
*should* they receive anything?

>>The argument from libertarians begins when you try to force them to support
>>*your* beliefs on how to solve other peoples' problems.
>
>No, the argument from libertarians begins when they think you are trying
>to force them to support ANYTHING.  Libertarians would allow me to solve
>other people's problems any way I want with my own money.  Otherwise, we
>could establish Conscientious Objector status, where libertarians paid,
>yet the money wasn't used for welfare.  :-)
>
>Their mistake is that our government is not forcing them to do anything.
>They can leave at any time, as I would have if the draft had not been
>discontinued in 1972.

this is foolishness of the highest order. in a newsgroup such as this,
we are discussing, among other things, how we feel the government
should be run, and what is proper. saying "America -- love it or leave
it" is not a valid response, because it is at the wrong level.
you sound like Archie Bunker.

we may like the country now, but think it could be much better. your
statement that the government "is not forcing them to do anything"
has been used to justify every abomination committed by government
since the dawn of civilization. the fact that "we can leave" doesn't
justify any actions taken by the government.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: The big difference
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 23:51:55 GMT

In article <clary.728244599@pv031e.vincent.iastate.edu> clary@iastate.edu (Jeffrey S Clary) writes:
>Anyone want to venture a definition of the word "rights" as it is being used
>here?  Some seem to be saying that a right is a thing that it is "morally 
>bad" but not physically impossible, to violate.

The above is what I called a 'moral right'.

>Others seem to be saying
>that a right is a thing that cannot possibly be violated (hence Linksvayer
>says that the Jews killed by Nazis "in fact had no right to live").

If a right can be violated with impunity then it is rather
useless to call it a right. A right which cannot be violated
with impunity is a legal right, or a right that might makes.
This is the sort of right that matters in the real world, and
the sort of right that Jews in Naziland did not have.

>Huben seems to be saying that even trying to decide moral bad and good
>as absolutes is nonsense.

I agree that claiming moral absolutes is nonsensical. I think
this is a somewhat separate point from the one I'm making above
- that people don't 'have' moral rights, except as figments of
their imagination. In reality all people have is rights made by
might. I cannot think of a good non-theistic argument against
this.
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "I got a catholic block"
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Social Darwinism
Organization: Sometimes
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:41:05 GMT

In article <1jpge3INN67n@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}In article <1993Jan21.035255.13609@genie.slhs.udel.edu> rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
}>I do not share your love it or leave it mentality, nor did I run away.  In
}>1968 I raised my hand and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United
}>States.  I put on those funny looking clothes and spent 16 months in
}>Southeast Asia.  It was while I was in the service that I learned the only
}>political morality is in liberty.  
}>
}>There were individuals who opposed the war and the draft but stayed in the
}>US risking jail time for their beliefs.  I respect them.  But I have no
}>respect for those who ran or would have runaway "if the draft had not been
}>discontinued."  
}
}It's funny to hear patriotism espoused by a libertarian: oh, you're a big-"L"
}Libertarian, that explains it.  I'd like to hear from small-"l" libertarians
}who think they should owe any more to a government than they do to the
}provider of any other service.  Least of all a term of slavery in the armed
}forces coercing others in the economic interests of the US.

As I said, it was while in the service I learned the only political
morality is in liberty.  Patriotism is not characterized by your love it
leave it attitude.  And patriotism is not blind obedience.

}
}There is a free market of governments from which to choose from, and ours
}attaches no penalty clause for ceasing to be an American citizen and taking
}up Canadian citizenship (as I would have: my mother was a Canadian citizen.)
}
}I too respect people who objected to the draft and stayed: I just have a
}different agenda of my own.  I don't give a fig for your respect if you say
}I should have taken a course that violated my contract with the US government
}when I could easily have done what I chose without violating any laws.
}
}Mike Huben

Since you are so fond of quotes in your signature, try this:  All that's
necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing...or runaway.



-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: dmandl@shearson.com (David Mandl)
Subject: Anarchist forum in NYC, Jan. 28, 1993
Reply-To: dmandl@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:42:56 GMT

There will be an anarchist forum in NYC this Thursday
(January 28) on the subject:

"Anarchism and Capitalism: Friends or Enemies"

Speakers: Perry Metzger (anarcho-capitalist) & Steve Shalom (anti-capitalist)

I'm sure many or most of you know Perry from the net; Steve is a professor 
of political science, writes for Z Magazine (among others), and is editor of
the book "Socialist Visions" (South End Press).  They will debate the
virtues of capitalism and its compatibility with anarchism.  (This won't be
a formal debate--the two will each get a chance to speak, and then there will
be a question-and-answer/discussion period open to everybody.)  This should
be a particularly lively forum.

This event is FREE (donations requested/appreciated)
Please come!

Place:
Penn South Community Center
369 Eighth Ave. (corner W. 29 St.)
NYC

Sponsor: Libertarian Book Club*


* The Libertarian Book Club is anarchist, not Libertarian.  The group
was founded in 1949 when the word "libertarian" meant "anarchist," and
refuses to change its name.
From: olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge? (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:35:48 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: hing.ai.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan25.073813.29279@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>In article <parvin1.727909950@husc.harvard.edu> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:

>}  ... a large number of libertarians ... pragmatically support a
>} libertarian agenda and feel alienated by the categorical universality
>} of the pledge.  They do not hold to one shining guiding principle.

>Such people simply aren't libertarians, but conservatives.  There's no reason
>why we should make the LP a safe haven for conservatives.           ^^^^^^^^^

I cannot understand how Tim could make such a statement.  To my mind, it
is perfectly clear that including 'conservatives' would increase the
political influence of the LP, and that increased political influence is
a valid motivation for a political party to change its policies.

Tim might well think that such increased influence is an _insufficient_
reason to change the LP's policy on the pledge.  I could understand such
a stand, although I would not agree with it, but to argue that it is no
reason _at_all_ is beyond my comprehension.  Could someone explain this?
-- 
Jim Olsen   olsen@cag.lcs.mit.edu   "Tache d'etre heureux." -- St-Exupery
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3836 soc.culture.usa:9991 alt.activism:21197
From: sals@florimel.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:11:10 GMT

In article <1jpb94INN664@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike  
Huben) writes:
> A clear example here of libertarian filtering: only able to see the  
negative
> side of government, never granting any positive acheivement.
> 
> One of the major alternatives to giving the land away in allotments was  
to
> sell it.  Selling it would have resulted in a few, rich absentee  
landowners
> at the end of the speculation (which would have priced the land out of  
the
> range of farmers.)
> 
And this is a clear example of modern liberal filtering only being able to  
see a negative ( and unlikely ) outcome of the freee market. Speculation  
tends to result in distributing something more widely. In order for  
selling on the free market to result in concentration of land a large  
concentration of  inital wealth is required. While a wealthy person can  
outbid poorer people a few times he does not have the wealth to outbid  
many poorer people. 
> >Perhaps even less government
> >interference in the distribution of land would have worked
> >better.  Perhaps the hands off result would not have differed
> >appreciably from the situation that obtained.  Perhaps it would
> >have been worse.  But you're guilty of the same charge that you
> >hurl at others, of assuming the effect is a result of your pet
> >theory.  We know that governments can foul up the works, but we
> >can never know if they got it right.
> 
> The US created an enormous class of propertied, prosperous farmers for  
more
> than 100 years, a social engineering success unparallelled in history.
> This wasn't "an effect of my pet theory": it was a deliberate, public
> decision that worked the way it was expected to.  It was a decision  
based
> on a vast amount of (then recent) experience in observing redistribution  
of
> land in the New World over 200 years in many states and nations.  Read  
some
> history.
Mr. Heuben as has been posted several times in the past the US  
government's decision to homestead occured after people started settling  
on the land without government interference. Most land in what is now the  
US was settled by people before government made any decision to  
redistribute land.  And before telling someone else to read history why  
don't YOU read some history. In particular look at the history surronding  
the debate about homesteading and look at the history of settlement before  
homesteading. > 
> Perhaps it was not optimal.  You would be hard pressed to show that it  
was
> not the best done yet, let alone present a methodology that would make
> better results (once you define what flavor of optimality you want.)
> 
> Mike Huben
Making an a prior assumpution here mike?
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:47:34 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1993Jan26.010557.22553@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
>It may be impossible to require anything [such as signing "the oath] of
>candidates where they are selected in primaries.

Of course, the LP would certainly have the ability to withhold endorsement of
such candidates (and even endorse independents running against them).

                                        James Parker
                                       jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge? (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:00:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.101049.7633@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
}In article <1993Jan25.073813.29279@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>}motivation, etc. Therefore, they pragmatically support a libertarian agenda  
}>}and feel alienated by the categorical universality of the pledge.  They do
}>}not hold to one shining guiding principle.
}>
}>Such people simply aren't libertarians, but conservatives.  There's no reason
}>why we should make the LP a safe haven for conservatives.
}
}Oh, so someone who supports the entire libertarian agenda but is
}not an NCP absolutist is a conservative? Gimme a break.

False dichotomy.  The post I replied to said "a libertarian agenda," not
"THE libertarian agenda."  That said, someone who doesn't believe that
freedom of speech is absolute doesn't believe in free speech, and someone
who doesn't believe that coercion is absolutely impermissible isn't a
libertarian.

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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Eliminate membership
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 02:00:30 GMT

In article <parvin1.728192739@husc.harvard.edu> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>"Membership" in an organization like the Libertarian Party is basically
>a meaningless honorific bestowed to those who contribute and wish to be
>recognized.

Why use the word membership then? Do something like:

LP News Subscriber	@15/year
LP Contributor		@50/year
LP Supporter		@100/year
LP Sustainer		@250/year
LP Benefactor		@500/year
etc.

> I think the LP would be hard pressed to raise funds if all it
>did were sell subscriptions to its newsletters.

But it wouldn't. It would ask for more. What percentage of the
LP's current revenues comes from people who only pay the basic
membership fee? My guess is about half ($25 * 10k = $250k, and I
think the National LP budget is something like $500k).

Would everyone stop giving because they were no longer called
"members"? I highly doubt it. Having official titles for people
who give more will even cause people motivated by such things to
give more than they would have if they were just a "member" no
matter how much they gave.
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "I let it play around"
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: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk's message of 19 Jan 93 16:56:01 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:56:59

In article <C141pD.Dsz@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

> So we have to ask what should be done.  IMHO, to provide any kind
> of equal opportunity that means anything, children should be given
> free (at point of consumption) medical care and education.

"Free" medical care and education are already available to all.
They are just not very good quality.  Even the poorest inner city
children can go to school.  They are just not very good schools.
And these same ghetto dwellers can already present themselves at
the county hospital emergency room and receive treatment for
whatever ails them.  So what is really being demanded is an
improved level of service.  This demand, of course, begs the
questions of how much improvement is required, at what cost,
and whom we shall charge for it.

Should public schools be required to provide individual tutors
for all students?  Should "free" nose jobs, breast augmentations
or reductions, liposuction treatments and other cosmetic surgical
procedures be provided for all the downtrodden who desire them?
Should we all be entitled to a CAT scan at every annual checkup?
Should we put sophisticated graphics workstations on the desks
of all students for their personal use?

I presume that even the most liberal socialist would answer these
questions in the negative.  But as much as we might decry the
present state of affairs as inadequate, we are still going to
have to state precisely what level we think is appropriate.  The
problem is that arguments favoring social benefits never take the
trouble to make these matters clear.  They just make some sort of
tacit assumption that we all agree on what the words minimal and
adequate and appropriate mean in these contexts.  But the truth
is that we don't know what they mean and, in fact, that the
meaning will necessarily vary from one case to another.
Determinations must be made on an individual basis.  So who gets
to decide?  Here's a radical notion:  Maybe we should just let
whoever's paying the bill decide how much to spend.

And if there are those out there who think that the present level
of spending is not enough, then why don't they just band together
and pony up some more of their own money.  Then they can
legitimately decide how much to spend and on just exactly what it
should be spent.  But why is it that the declaimers on the
welfare of the poor always seem to want to exercise their
compassion with the unwilling contributions of others?

=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 01:05:57 GMT

In article <C1F1Ew.79w@athena.cs.uga.edu> dbrown@ai.uga.edu writes:
>I have a copy of the original proposal.  It merely says, "Eliminate the
>`Oath'."  It says nothing about keeping it for candidates.

If you follow the discussion on LPUS you'll find that those who
support eliminating the oath as a requirement for membership are
not against requiring it of party officers, convention delegates
and the like. It may be impossible to require anything of
candidates where they are selected in primaries.
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sals@florimel.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:25:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.025019.255@midway.uchicago.edu>  
sals@florimel.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
> Let's look at this from a mathematical perspective. Let f  be a map from  
> A, what rights derive from, to the set of individual rights, let's call  
it  
> B. Let g be a map from B to C, the rights of groups. Examine f composed  
on  
> g and you have the rights of groups derived from the same basis as  
> individual rights, yet if x, some right, is not an element of B, the set  
> of individual rights in not an element of g(X) the set of group rights.
> This is a compostion, but no fallacy.
Oops!!! In my haste to write this I omitted two crucial phrases. F and g  
are 1-1 and onto maps. And it should read x .... is not mapped to an  
element of g(x). My apologies.... But now there is no fallacy of  
composition. BTW Mr. Heuben did change the meaning of my original sentence  
by saying if an individual doesn't have a right then a group doesn't. Note  
I said derived from not equivalent to. So a better sentence would be a  
group has a right iff the right is a combination of individual rights. And  
incidently how was my use of derive a fallacy, ?r. Heuben?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Stunning Democrat hypocrisy
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:27:53 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:
> Someone told me that the Clinton inaugeration festivities cost
> $28,000,000. Can anyone confirm this? If it's true, I'm utterly
> shocked. Twenty-eight million dollars! My God, I thought the
> Democrats were big on taking money and giving it to the poor.
> Don't they know how many units of low-income housing they could
> build with that kind of cash?

oh, and remember how Clinton wasn't going to pander to special 
interests? i was watching Comedy Central's coverage of the 
"festivities" (the only one i could stomach.) & at the end they 
rolled the "credits", listing all the sponsors. it was long & it read 
like a who's-who of special interest groups. *sigh*

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`   "Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly" - Tim Starr   `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`