HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Subject: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Date: 6 Oct 1992 15:59:16 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
	<1992Sep29.154153.27836@athena.cs.uga.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep29.154153.27836@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux
(Daniel Brown) writes:

> Why was this crossposted to alt.individualism?  Greenpeace,
> being an environmentalist group, is not noted for its concern
> for individuals (at least not human ones).

=o= I don't know why it was cross-posted to alt.individualism.
I take exception with your claim, however.

=o= Environmentalism is not anti-individualist.  I can see how
somebody bearing a message about ecological interconnections
could be misrepresented -- and thus misconstrued -- as such,
but that's just a case of blaming the messenger.

=o= Indeed, I find a strong streak of individualism within
the movement, at least in my country (and, nominally, in the
"Green" movements abroad).  Environmentalists are doing more
real work to effect individual autonomy and the decentralization
of power than anybody else.

=o= In the case of Greenpeace, one of the guiding principles
of the organizations is the Quaker imperative of "speaking truth
to power."  The "speaker" is understood to be somebody without
power, i.e., a common individual.  "Power" is typically some
sort of powerful institution, either public or private.

=o= I'm not sure what the comment about a lack of concern
for individuals (at least not human ones) is supposed to be
in reference to.  A lot of what Greenpeace does involves
opposition to things that have a direct an negative impact
on human individuals.

=o= I realize that a good portion of alt.individualism's
readership subscribes to a libertarian, objectivist, or some
variety of conservative ideology, and that these ideologies
have a tendency to conflate private institutions (no matter
how powerful) with individuals.  Nothing I say will satisfy
these people.  I just ask that they bear in mind that their
dogma is not the alpha and omega of individualism.
    <_Jym_>
__
I am less interested in what the definition is.  You might argue
technically, are we in a recession or not.  But what there's this
kind of sluggishness and concern -- definitions, heck with it.
                -- President George Bush.
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Currency systems
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 01:39:36 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na
  <1992Sep22.165926.22612@henson.cc.wwu.edu> <Buzr1H.DIx@apollo.hp.com>
  <136979@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1992Sep23.143316.3963@hemlock.cray.com>
  <1651@hsvaic.boeing.com> <1992Sep28.105210.6922@hemlock.cray.com>

>If you want to use a silver as a store of value, buy silver.  You can
>then conver to the "fiat" currency at the market rate.  So if the
>government tries to inflate the "fiat" money supply, the value of
>your silver should inflate (in nominal dollars), maintaining the 
>silvers real value.
>
>-- 
>Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
>EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Wrong.  If you convert the silver back into Federal Reserve Notes,
in the process getting more of them than you paid for it, you have
realized a "capital gain" according to the Internal Revenue Code, even
if the greater number of FRNs buys no more than the original number due
to inflation.  Coin dealers are now required (as long as they don't want
people with loaded guns to escort them to little rooms with bars) to
submit 1099 forms whenever they buy gold bullion coins from customers.
This may well apply to silver also.

If you try to trade the coins for goods, the recipient will then be liable
for taxes on capital gains whenever he/she trades the coins for FRNs.  In
fact, if I understand the situation correctly, when you trade the
bullion for goods, you become at that moment liable for taxes on the
difference between the basis value of (i.e what you paid for) the bullion 
and the fair market value of the goods you traded it for.

And if you think that the IRS doesn't care about barter, it is my
understanding that one of the IRS's favorite interrogation questions is
"do you belong to a barter exchange?"

In the event of a hyperinflation (which, of course, only paranoids
worry about, because they have never happened in this century, except
in Germany, Hungary, Brazil, Israel, China, Peru, and Bolivia) the FRN
basis will be a negligible percentage of the nominal FRN price of the
bullion, so the nominal "capital gain" will be essentially identical
to the liquidation value, hence subject to federal and state income
tax.

Checkmate.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: gold standard
Date: Sun,  4 Oct 92 13:13:04 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>In article <66933@cup.portal.com> atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
>>The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, a free-market think
>>tank in San Francisco, published a collection of papers called _Money in
>>Crisis_ around 1983.  One of the authors reported that a commodity
>>mix he called ANCAP (ammonium nitrate, copper, aluminum, and plywood, 
>>weighted in some particular way) had had rock-steady purchasing power
>>for 30 years!...
>
>	If those commodities were actually used as currency (even in the
>way you describe), wouldn't their value AS CURRENCY by definition change
>the demand for them, making their purchasing power less rock-steady?
>
>-- 
>Peter Johnson	       "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience	
>Independent Studies     cannot blindly follow orders." --Capt. Jean-Luc
>University of Waterloo  Picard (Patrick Stewart) to Adm. Haftel, STAR TREK:
>	   		THE NEXT GENERATION, "The Offspring"

Indubitably.

However, once peoples' hoards of monetary commodities reached roughly
their targets for monetary holdings, only *changes* in the demand for
money would interfere with the market values of the commodities as
ordinary commodities.

Nor would these be the only monetary commodities.  Competing providers
of money would try different commodities, thereby dissolving the
effect of monetary usage among more commodities.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105)
Subject: Re: Currency systems
Followup-To: alt.individualism
Summary: Re: Currency systems
Keywords: money
Reply-To: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:52:26 GMT
Expires: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 10:52:58 GMT

In article <1667@hsvaic.boeing.com>, eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes:
> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes:
> 
>>   Again, since the value of the more robust major currencies have shown
>>   a stability of value superior to that of gold (which has devalued 50%
>>   over the last 10 years) your "There are none" borders upon rant.
> 
> I suggest that the data disagrees with you.  In October of 1982 the
> consumer price index (CPI-U) stood at 98.2.  Today it stands at
> 140.  Therefore the dollar has depreciated 30% over the past 10 years.
> And the time period you are using starts from when gold was at an
> all-time high price measured in dollars.

{excellent, comprehensive review of statistics relating $ value to gold and
other commodities deleted to save space}.

> I suggest that gold has been shown to be more stable than the
> dollar.
> 
> Dani Eder
> 

Well, as you point out, the relative stability depends rather upon the time
period under consideration. In the last 10 years, the $ has depreciated 30%,
and Gold has declined from $800 to $350 = 100 - 100x(450/800)x(dollar
depreciation value) = say 70% (I havn't my calculator to hand).

Over a longer period, however, gold has shown itself to be more robust. Doesn't 
do you much good if you only have 3 years to live, does it?

My post which triggered this response was in reply to Tim Starr, who stated
basically that  "Nothing outlasts gold. It never has, and it never will" (you
can see that I watch far too much TV). Within that context, I pointed out one
small area in which he was wrong. I have also brought out my point that
declining value of the $ _per se_ is not necessarily a show stopper.

One interesting feature of your statistics is the asymptotic approach to a 1/2
life of 11 years for the $. 

Do you suppose that there is some psychological barrier below which people
refuse to have any confidence in a currency? Has the market converged to this
truth by accident, or is there something more to it?

regards, Tony Cox, Stanford, CA
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:49:35 GMT
Organization: Quake Public Access

In article <1992Sep28.122203.7922@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:
>In article <Bv8Fzv.D99@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K.  
>Yoder) writes:
>> Absolutely not!  Do you think that what you are typing on right now is both
>> a computer and not a computer? (At the same time and in the same respect.)
>> Is it possible that you are both in  California and not in California?
>> Is it possible that your are both reading and not reading this message?
 
>I'm standing on the border of California with one foot in Nevada. Am I in  
>California or not? 

Well, that depends on your definition of what "Being in California" is. If
you use a consistent definition, you either are or are not.  The kind of
objection you are making is something I find that people do all the time and I
find it quite annoying.  If you change the context of a true statement, it
makes the statement a different one, it doesn't prove the first statement
false, and it does not prove that contradictory statements can be true.

If you defined "Being in California." as "Having part of one's body in
California." then standing with one foot on either side of the border
one is "In California.".  If you are going to use another definition, then
your answer might be different, but the facts are the facts.  They are
not indeterminate.

>I'm typing this on a typewriter (containing a microprocessor
>and a disk drive). Is it a computer or not?  I'm using a voice synthesizer
> to output your message. Am I reading it or not?  Answers to the above  
>questions: Yes.

Well, I would say that a typewriter which happens to have a microprocessor
in it is not a "computer" in the sense I meant.  You seem to think that
just because the referents of some of the terms are somehow different just
because you choose to refer to them differently.  Do you think that because of
these borderline cases somehow prove that facts don't have a definite
identity?  This is quite strange, and I can't believe that you really think 
these things are contradictory.  It's just a 3rd-grader's idea of an
argument.  If accused of breaking a window, an 8-year old might say
"I didn't break any windows. (But I did hit a ball which passed through through
a glass panel on that house.)".  You are essentially saying that such 
arguments are valid.

--Brian
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: gold standard
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:14:56 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Sep25.212231.16700@mcc.com>
  <1992Sep25.175844.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu>
  <1992Sep30.211209.1297@bradley.bradley.edu>

>That seems to be the most logical thing to me: switch to another commodity
>like platinum or something.  Tradable things have value.  Currency has no
>inherent value in and of itself...
>
>--------------------------{dave@bradley.bradley.edu}-------------------------

The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, a free-market think
tank in San Francisco, published a collection of papers called _Money in
Crisis_ around 1983.  One of the authors reported that a commodity
mix he called ANCAP (ammonium nitrate, copper, aluminum, and plywood, 
weighted in some particular way) had had rock-steady purchasing power
for 30 years!  During this period, the Federal Reserve Note shriveled
and gold gyrated.

A trust structured as a mutual fund, with encrypted electronic
clearing and smart cards, could offer a very attractive private money,
without the fluctuations which individual commodities are heir to.
All four commodities are actively traded on mercantile exchanges with
lots of futures speculators, which means that they are highly liquid,
uniform between exchanges (thanks to arbitrage), and computerized
clearing, quality standards, bonded warehouses, and other infrastructural
elements are already in place.

As for the risk of getting an armed escort to a little room with
bars ("legal tender laws"), I invite anyone familiar with this stuff
to comment.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 04:37:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free market stuff)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

In alt.individualism, atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:

> In article <10260027@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) w
> >
> >Rights are an invention of society.  Rights do not exist in isolation.
> >They are a political technology.  We, as a society, are free to choose.
> 
> In the early 1940's, German society chose not to invent a right to
> exist for Jews.  Therefore, the Holocaust did not violate anyone's
> rights.
> 
> Imagine MY surprise.

They made a very bad choice.  If this surprises you, you are
ignorant of history.  Murder and genocide were not invented in
the 1930s.  The right to life is a critically important
political idea, and should be vigorously defended by men of
reason everywhere.  Your argument is demagoguery and in no way subverts
my assertion that rights are an invention of man.

Of course, your intent is to suggest that somehow I approve
of genocide.  The tactic is detestable and repulsive. 

doug
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5677 alt.activism.d:3575 talk.environment:4088
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

This whole debate over A is A is quite tired.

I never denied the truth of identity.
 
What caused me to ridicule the A is A thing in the first place
is the following statement by Mr Fulton that is somewhat
representative of the discourse of people who like to 
say things like A is A.

>If a system of government is based on individual rights, and, through the
>democratic process, it is decided that a 40% taxation rate is not a violation
>of individual rights, is that a workable system?  A is A.

While I FULLY understand what Mr. Fulton is saying, and even somewhat
agree with it, suggesting that his observation is somehow validated
by appending "A=A" is a great example of what I mean when I suggest
that A != A in the real world.  One would presume that by typing 
A=A, Mr. Fulton is trying to say that a society that taxes is
not respecting individual rights.  He is probably right.
But then he asks, "Is the system workable?", and appends that
lovely A=A.

The answer is yes, the system is workable.  It is NOT axiomatically
obvious that it is not workable.  And fundamentally, the problem is
that society as a whole does not recognize the right not to be taxed
by society as an individual right.  Mr. Fulton and his freinds are
free to keep fighting to get this recongnized as an individual right,
but the fact is, no democratic nation in the world today recongnizes
the individual right not to be taxed.  Until the population forces
institutions to grant this right, the right does not exist.

The argument is not with the identity axiom at all.  The argument
is with people who seem to think that the axiom validates
their every thought and political idea.


doug
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: gold standard
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:46:48 GMT

It seems that our disagreement with Tony Cox is one of structure, rather than
content.  Us libertarians argue for free banking, and that the best base for
currency is presently gold.  Cox argues for an ill-defined "independent"
central bank, and fails to see the merits of the policy of such banks switching
to the gold standard.

BTW, Tony, I tried to return your mail, but it failed.  This will have to
suffice for now.

We argue for separation of finance and state (well, existence and state, but
that's another case).  No bank is truly independent if coercively monopolized
by the State.  It's correct to observe that coercively monopolized currencies
which the State hasn't done much with are relatively stable, but as long as
the State plays a role, the potential for such meddling remains.

Cox seems to be asking: "Why should central bank policy be the gold standard?
All that is necessary is that the bank be independent."  We argue that such
independence is transient at best, and that the sort of monetarism practiced
by most banks only minimizes inflation, it doesn't eliminate it, as free
banking would tend to.


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." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5579 sci.econ:7804 talk.politics.misc:48043
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Currency systems
Keywords: n
Date: 25 Sep 92 18:40:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.individualism
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


>In article <136979@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, michael@rosebud.llnl.gov (Mike Slominski) writes:
>> In article <Buzr1H.DIx@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> : In article <1992Sep22.165926.22612@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>> :> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>> 
>> Standardizing money on something of practical value is the only real
>> way to insure the stability of a currency.

>Milton Friedman disagrees.  He has proposed a that the money supply 
>be increased only at the rate of GNP growth to ensure stable prices.

>> The idea of a "gold standard" is NOT childish nonsense but gold is
>> probably not the best commodity to standardize to - the real (not
>> dollar) value of gold does vary a little too much.  The best scheme
>> I've come across bases money on a "bucket of commodities," all of
>> which have practical value.  If one of the commodities loses its
>> practical value, another is substituted.  As it stands, it's not
>> inconceivable that people could lose faith in the little green pieces
>> of paper in my wallet.  And though I may lose a little on my American
>> eagles (U.S. gold coins), they're a lot trustier than little green
>> pieces of paper.

>If you use the largest "bucket of commodities" (the entire economy), then
>your solution is what we have now: a currency with a value based on what
>people will exchange for it.

What is desired is a standard of value whose measure can be fixed
with certainty.  The dollar used to simply be a unit of measure of
silver, approx 0.78 ounce silver in the form of a coin of 90% purity
(the other 10% was alloying metal to make the coin more durable,
.  The specific mass of silver in the coin was determined by historical
accident, it was the average content of the spanish silver dollars in
circulation at the time of the Coinage Act of 1793.  Today, since
we are currently divorced from any precious metal coinage, we are
free to pick a round number to set the standard of value.  I
propose 1 oz troy as the standard.  A metric standard might also
be appropriate, with 20 or 25 grams of silver approximating the old
silver dolar.  To make it clear that the coins represent specific
masses of precious metal, we can be radical and eliminate the dollar
altogether as the primary unit, and have the coinage read "10 grams
silver", or "1/2 ounce silver".  This would make it obvious if
someone was attempting to debase the coinage.

Dani Eder

-- 
Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Civil Space/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Member: Space Studies Institute
Physical Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
***THE ABOVE IS NOT THE OPINION OF THE BOEING COMPANY OR ITS MANAGEMENT.***
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:22:03 GMT

In article <Bv8Fzv.D99@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K.  
Yoder) writes:
> Absolutely not!  Do you think that what you are typing on right now is both
> a computer and not a computer? (At the same time and in the same respect.)
> Is it possible that you are both in  California and not in California?
> Is it possible that your are both reading and not reading this message?
> 

I'm standing on the border of California with one foot in Nevada. Am I in  
California or not? I'm typing this on a typewriter (containing a microprocessor  
and a disk drive). Is it a computer or not?  I'm using a voice synthesizer
 to output your message. Am I reading it or not?  Answers to the above  
questions: Yes.


--
Barry Wise
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:10:28 GMT
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 8nI@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca, pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson) writes:
>	Could you please explain what "fuzzy logic" is?  Note that any
>assumptions which must be made for a fuzzy logic solution to be "valid"
>should be enumerated now rather than when someone catches a contradiction
>and someone has to say, "But it's understood from the fuzzy logic model
>that...."
>	Thanks!
>-- 

Fuzzy logic is a form of approximate reasoning incorperating the intrinsic
ambiguities, imprecisions and undecidabilitites associated with real-world
phenomena. It was formally defined in 1965 by Lofti Zadeh and has its basis
in in continuous and multivalued logics. Fuzzy logic is based on the idea of
the fuzzy set which does not have the two states ((0) inclusion, (0) exclusion)
of "normal" logic but has a characteristic function that admits a degree of
membership in the set from complete exclusion to absolute exclusion. Fuzzy
sets do not have an arbitrary boundry separating members from non-members.

If you examine the real-world, i.e. life, not a set of axioms you will note
that this fits how things really work. How long will it take a project to
finish? How do you feel? How dirty is your laundry? How much do you love me?
How do you feel about going to war? How risky is an adventure? None admit to a 
simple true or false answer or useful manipulation under the assumptions of
propositional logic, except perhaps if you are libertarian :-) 
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5602 sci.econ:7836