HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta)
Subject: Re: Yet more on PPL systems
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:34:50 GMT

In article <DRW.92Oct2110056@euclid.mit.edu>, drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct1.170737.14133@athena.mit.edu> danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
|>    Much of today's poor are produced by the crippling effects the
|>    welfare state has on the economy.  In an anarcho-capitalist
|>    society, there would be far less poor.
|> 
|> This is an interesting assertion, but one I'd like to see some
|> tangible evidence for.  Do you have any examples?  As far as I can
|> tell, Western culture since the Renaissance has been getting far less
|> anarcho-captialist, and the poor are getting considerably less
|> wretched.  Needless to say, the correlation might not be causal, but
|> statist interventions in modern times seem to reduce inequality, not
|> increase it.
|> 
	I never said anything about reducing inequality since I am unconerned
about the distribution of wealth.  What I said was that societies with less
government are richer, ceteris paribus, than those with more government.  In
the long run, even given wider disparities of wealth, a higher rate of economic
growth would make everyone richer.  

	Actually, Western society became more deregulated after the
Renaissance, during the 19th century age of Laissez-Faire.  Since then, things
have become more regulated again.  

	Most international eveidence would suggest that more govt. hurts economic
growth with alll else equal.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: More on anarchocapitalism
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:14:13 GMT

ausman@ocf.berkeley.edu (James Ausman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.200356.10155@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>
>>You forget that the people "upon whom they would be enforcing the law"
>>would also have security companies working for them, which would get
>>very very angry about having their clients killed. Checks and
>>balances.
>>
>Sounds like gang warfare to me... The perfect libertarian utopia. Coming soon 
>to a neighborhood near you!!!

Why would you assume that people would risk their lives and lose money
to fight when they could be safe and gain money instead? Warfare is
only feasable for states because they have the capacity to tax and
conscript -- they could not raise the funds needed through voluntary
means, and they could not retain soldiers who would be free to quit.

An anarchocapitalist system has large numbers of internal checks and
balances.

Take, for instance, the "wouldn't a security company simply start
forceably extorting money from its clients" argument. The answer is
no, it could not; the clients would simply walk down the street, hire
another company to protect them from the first, and suddenly the
original company is in a position in which trying to extort money will
result in their going into a costly war with another company. Since
companies will likely have "reinsurance" and mutual aid agreements
with each other, going "rogue" would likely get a company swiftly into
a war with an overwhelming force -- the undesired behavior is
therefore checked.

Another common question is "wouldn't rich people like Bill Gates
simply walk all over everyone in such a system?". The answer to this
is, again, no. Bill Gates is the richest guy in the US, and yet his
personal assets are very small compared to that even a medium sized
insurance company can command. If Bill Gates decided to "go rogue" and
rape your wife and then laugh about it, your security company,
together with lots of other companies that got drawn in by mutual
agreement, would likely crush him. He'd have other problems, too. Bill
would end up being declared an outlaw, and would suddenly find people
stealing his goods all over the country with impunity, since having
refused to go along with the customary laws no one would be
contractually bound to accept his property rights any longer. Any of
his people that went along and helped him would become outlaws as
well, and thus he'd have trouble convincing his people to help him
out. He wouldn't be able to conduct normal business, thus cutting off
his supply of new funds. His bankers might suddenly refuse to give him
money from his accounts because they don't want to get drawn into his
mess. In short, he'd rapidly be paralysed. Its a little understood fact,
but the rich have far more to lose by disobeying custom than the poor
do.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Date: 29 Sep 92 10:29:22 MDT
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Reply-To: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu
Organization: University of Utah, CS Dept., Salt Lake City

In article <1992Sep29.151210.13226@athena.mit.edu>, danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
>In article <1a7pefINNs0s@uwm.edu>, glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
>	Yes, but it is easier to defend oneself against an individual or a
>company than an army.

Unless the "company" is an army.  It may be true that you have a better
chance defending yourself against thugs hired by Donald Trump than 
against the U.S. Army.  But I would be more afraid of Donald Trump's
army than the U.S. Army.  If I criticize the government, there are
laws to prevent the Army from assassinating me, and these laws are
usually followed.  What would prevent Trump's thugs from killing me
if I was about to expose some kind of personal scandal? 
 

>	Power in a free market is decentralized.  There will be no capitalist
>conspiracy that will run everything.  There will be many people minding their
>own business trying to get rich.  And only by producing valuable goods and
>services, and not by buying favors from politicians.  There will be no
>government so no one could control it.  Perhaps you should define government.

It may be decentralized, but at least in a democracy I have some control
over George Bush's power.  In a pure free market, the poor have no control
at all. 
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Monopolies and Cartels
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:01:11 GMT

drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.021840.12988@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>   Bill Gates didn't get to be a billionare by beating up 10 year olds
>   for their pocket change. Free exchanges of goods are NOT a zero sum
>   game. [...]  The
>   market allocates resources to those that give people what they want.
>
>But compare with the case of John Rockefeller, who really perfected
>the system of monopoly.  He became insanely rich, but not by
>delivering goods in an improved way to a market, but by circumventing
>that market.
>
>The ultimate result of these shenanigans was the definition of an
>entire new category of crime, "anti-trust law", and the construction
>of a part of government to keep markets functioning when some of the
>participants would destroy them.

Actually, Standard Oil had lost a considerable fraction of its market
share at the time the US first moved to break it up and looked like it
would have fallen without intervention. US Steel went from over 90%
market share when it was formed to less than 50% share a decade later,
without any government intervention. Your analysis would indicate that
this should not have happened. J.P. Morgan tried time and time again
to get the railroad cartels he tried forming to last -- they never
operated for more than a matter of months. OPEC, completely outside
the scope of regulation by any entity, has done so badly that the
price of oil today periodically dips lower in real dollars than it was
at the time of the '73 oil shock!

Monopolies and cartels are not seen to be stable in the real world.
They are a chimerica -- a threat that doesn't really exist.


--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta)
Subject: Re: Yet more on PPL systems
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:19:16 GMT

In article <DRW.92Oct5171143@euclid.mit.edu>, drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct5.163450.16520@athena.mit.edu> danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
|>    Most international eveidence would suggest that more govt. hurts economic
|>    growth with alll else equal.
|> 
|> Certainly, the countries in which intervention into the market is done
|> to reduce the social stresses of capitalism tend to have lower growth
|> rates (as might be expected).  But it seems that the highest growth
|> rates that have been sustained for a decade or more have been in the
|> economies of East Asia, where government intervention into the market
|> is explicitly to increase economic growth, rather than to improve
|> human comfort.
|> 
|> Perhaps both of these are to be expected -- production equals
|> consumption plus investment.  If the government tries to increase
|> consumption, investment will go down.  If the government tries to
|> increase investment, consumption will go down.

	Most of the fast growing East Asian countries are far less interventionist
than any others.  And when they do intervene, they tend to do it in the least
distortionary way.  Governments can have some effect in increasing investment. 
But the results can be transitory.  In a paper by Allwyn Young, comparing
Singapore to Hong Kong, he notes that Hong Kong's growth came from both more
capital and more intelligent use of capital but Singapore's is mostly from just
an increase in capital.  The rate of return on capital in Singapore has fallen
low so that its growth may not be sustainable.  Thus Singapore has a similarity
to the former Soviet Bloc which had a lot of capital but with a low return.
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:45:01
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
	<1992Oct3.005506.3392@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: caisr1.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu's message of Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:55:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.005506.3392@vela.acs.oakland.edu> wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.165122.5108@leland.Stanford.EDU>, miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
>>Dear members of the libertarian left,

>>Now that we've been exposed to countless arguments in favor of the libertarian
>>right, maybe it's time to ask some crucial questions?

>Come on, this post should have come from the "right".                 :-)

Okay, here are ten real questions for left-anarchists...

1) Without property rights, what happens when two people want to use
the same item at the same time, and neither is willing to back down?

2) If they get into a fight, are the allowed to proceed, or will other
people forcibly break it up?

3) Can you use force to prevent others from entering your home, or can
anyone off the street decide they want to live with you?

4) If nobody owns anything, is anyone allowed to destroy anything?  Is
nobody allowed to destroy anything?

5) What happens when nobody wants to do the unpleasant or boring jobs
-- from working on an assembly line to shuffling papers in an office?

6) When someone uses violence, is there organized retribution, and if
so, of what kind?

7) If someone is accused of using violence and denies it, is there an
organized way of investigating and weighing the evidence?

8) Are people allowed to own weapons?  Any weapons?  If not, how do
you enforce the ban?

9) How do you handle vendettas between groups that hate each other
(enemies, rival families, rival gangs, ethnic groups, etc.)?

10) If a group decides to establish control over property using
weapons and force, do you attempt to stop them, and if so, how?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard)
Subject: Re: Call for REVOLUTION.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 19:56:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.020345.12914@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.103319.571@extropia.wimsey.bc.ca> miron@extropia.wimsey.bc.ca (Miron Cuperman) writes:
>>>
>>>Are you a collectivist or an anarchist?  You must choose, because you
>>>can't be both.  You can't say you want freedom and then put conditions
>>>on it.  Freedom means that everyone minds their own business.
>>
>>I would like everyone to know that there is a perfectly legitimate
>>strand of political thought and tradition associated with the term
>>libertarian socialist.  These people believe that freedom is, among
>>other things, more than just minding your own business.  For one thing,
>>it would involve the recognition that the social division of labor in
>>an advanced state of technological and industrial development combine
>>to make us all dependent on each other for our existence.  
>
>You are entitled to your opinions, but most modern voluntarists would
>hold that there is a contradiction between wanting people to be free
>and wanting to find new "anarchosyndicalist" methods for restraining
>them. Contradictions in peoples idea systems are hardly new, however,
>and far be it for me to try to interfere with yours. However, I think
>you will find that the fastest growing branch of the anarchist meme
>complex is the anarchocapitalist, or voluntarist, or whatever you
>choose to call us, branch. I won't call your branch "illegitimate"
>because there is no one to grant legitimacy, but you will find that
>far more people use the term libertarian to mean our position than
>yours now. Just as we lost "liberal" to the fabian socialists early in
>the century, you have lost "libertarian" to us, and I suggest you stop
>using it, as given current usage, "libertarian socialist" is an
>oxymoron. Continuing to use it only confuses your audiance.
>
>--
>Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
>--
>		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
>			 Extropian and Proud.


I don't think I'll stop using the term libertarian socialist.  I do
think that this trend has a long honorable history.  Please read the
Chomsky article on anarchism.  I do not wish to interfere with your
use of the term libertarian and I don't think it confuses my audience.
Thanks for your suggestion though.  By the way, I wouldn't mind saying
no to death and taxes and classes and capitalism and the state and the
rich who employ the workers to make the commodities they sell on the 
market to make themselves the rich.
-- 
Mike Ballard 
Time is money. Steal some today!
Don't just complain, organize! e-mail iww@igc.org  Ph: (415)863-WOBS.
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Safe streets
Date: 6 Oct 92 08:06:02 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <DRW.92Sep30104715@euclid.mit.edu> drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
>Personally, I'd measure the "civilization" of a country by whether one
>can walk down the streets safely at night. 

By that standard, Cuba is quite civilized. Local "committees for the 
defence of the revolution" (like Neighborhood Watch, but obviously 
political) keep an eye on things.

Of course, there's a lot wrong with Cuba, particularly if one is an
anarchist. 

However, the streets there are safer than those of most U.S. communities.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Which brand(s) of anarchy?
Date: 29 Sep 1992 14:43:28 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

What if I had the strength to sell all that I own...
And give the money to the poor?  The strength to do
this, even knowing what my life partner would think of
this....  The strength to do this knowing that I
wouldn't be able to afford college...  The strength
to take all my dreams and flush them down the toilet...
To be replaced by new dreams... new hopes...  far better
ones...
 
What if Jim had the strength to put down his weapons, seeing
full well the inhumane way we treat each other...  Knowing
full well that those who have are going to beat down those
who have not...  What if he had the strength not to
retaliate, but instead channel all his passion into helping
those who are beaten down, rather than bashing down those
who oppress....  What if he could deal with being limited
in how much he could help...  What if he could respect those
who oppress, knowing that inside we all are wimps....
 
What if...  Why what if?  Why are we such wimps... Inside
we all want a world of love...  We want it so bad we can
taste it.... but we all flinch just before we reach it...
why?   Intelligence.... Self preservation...
 
Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it;
and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
--
glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: warfare
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:27:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <==4-00+@engin.umich.edu>, mschiffer@engin.umich.edu (Michael S. Schiffer, LHN) writes...
>	But what's to prevent the security agencies themselves from
>becoming a threat?  After all, provision of defense in exchange for
>wealth isn't a definition only of anarchy-- it also characterizes
>feudalism.  Why shouldn't a security agency exercise power over its
>clients, or raid those who aren't?  Because other agencies are
>protecting them?


	Why shouldn't a left anarchy have problems with gangs of people
becoming a threat?!?  Because other people are protecting you?

	If people in a right anarchy had the pacificm that left anarchists
require in their society, then how can left anarchists criticize right
anarchy.  It would work according to their own requirements of human
nature.

	To get to your question, what "prevents" security agencies
from becoming a threat is not necessarily another agency.  It is the
profit motive.  Security agencies have an incentive to be civilized
because that is what attracts customers and avoids ostracism from
society.  A rogue (statist) agency could find itself achieving the 
status of outlaws very quickly.  A rogue agency is not impossible,
but it is unlikely because the incentives lead in the other direction.


	Try reading David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_ and
Bruce Benson's _The Enterprise of Law_ for complete arguments supporting
this view.


Mark Sulkowski
Anarchocapitalist for Andre Marrou!
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Subject: Re: Monopolies and Cartels
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 16:16:18 GMT


In article <DRW.92Oct5170152@euclid.mit.edu>, drw@euclid.mit.edu writes:

> >    Monopolies and cartels are not seen to be stable in the real world.
> >    They are a chimerica -- a threat that doesn't really exist.
> 
> Not exactly -- it's just that they're unstable over the long run.
> Rockefeller *still* did found one of the great dynastic fortunes, and
> he got that money by gouging his customers.  ("Gouging" in the sense
> that he destroyed competitors and then raised prices above the
> previous market equilibrium.  [...]

The price of kerosene had been constantly falling during the Standard
Oil "monopoly" from more than $2 per gallon in the early 1860s to 
approximately six cents per gallon at the time Standard Oil was taken 
to court in 1907.  If Rockefeller raised prices, he certainly wasn't
able to maintain it.

thant
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: dhesi@rahul.net (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy as a newsgroup?
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:09:11 GMT
Organization: a2i network

In <1992Sep24.040134.3921@hellgate.utah.edu>
galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:

>I would someone to explain why it is better to be controlled by a company
>than a government.  And how exactly is it different?

The word "controlled" sort of prejudges the situation.

Nevertheless, a big difference between private companies and the
government is that you can't switch governments without changing your
residence.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
also:  dhesi@cirrus.com
From: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Help!!!
Reply-To: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 23:23:25 GMT

PLease encourage your nihilist friend to drop his plan to vote
Republican to hasten the economic collapse.  It's sorta the
same logic of being cruel to waiters and waitresses to hasten
the revolution.

I voted for eldrige cleaver and the peace and freedom party in
1968 to punish the democrats and what did it get me?  Nixon
and the Burger/Rehnquist supreme court.

Erik Timmerman
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: dmandl@shearson.com (David Mandl)
Subject: Re: Safe streets
Reply-To: dmandl@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:24:33 GMT

In article 25408@samba.oit.unc.edu, Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>In article <DRW.92Sep30104715@euclid.mit.edu> drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
>>Personally, I'd measure the "civilization" of a country by whether one
>>can walk down the streets safely at night. 
>
>By that standard, Cuba is quite civilized. Local "committees for the 
>defence of the revolution" (like Neighborhood Watch, but obviously 
>political) keep an eye on things.
>
>Of course, there's a lot wrong with Cuba, particularly if one is an
>anarchist. 
>
>However, the streets there are safer than those of most U.S. communities.
>

Yup, they sure are.  Safe from gays and other undesirables in particular.

   --Dave.

---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
         Dave Mandl            |    Opinions expressed here
       New York City           | are not those of my employer,
   (dmandl@shearson.com)       |          believe me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Practice
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:29:07 GMT

Are there any communities that use private security companies for
performing what are ordinarily government police functions?  I know
that a lot of large companies hire security companies, and there are
some "private communities" that have their own security forces, but
are there any entire communities (with a variety of residents and
businesses) whose streets are effectively patrolled by an assortment
of private security companies (not just one which is contracted as the
community's "police department")?

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy