HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:56:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.112429.8452@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <a0R=Lv_@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>}In article <1992Dec13.022756.3194@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>}>
>}
>}Look at the free market, pal, look at the free market. It doesn't really
>}matter what gold is *used* for, what matters is that there is a demand
>}for it, and that there is a supply of it. The most useless thing in the
>}world has value if people want it and people can supply it. Gold is a
>}good store of value because it's durable, doesn't rot, decay, or dissolve,
>}and is relatively rare.

Gold is also good because it's highly divisible into identical bits. Diamonds
(for example--I'm not seriously suggesting them to back a currency) are less
satisfactory because they're all a little different from each other and
a large diamond is more valuable in one piece than it would be if it were
cut into several smaller diamonds. (This makes it harder to make change.)

This seems like an argument in favor of the backing commodity being 
either an element, or some compound with a simple chemical structure
to allow for standardization. (It should also be non-radioactive, or
nearly so--that way, it'll be more durable and safe to store without
protective facilities.) 

Anyone have any other nominees besides gold that meet these qualifications?
(It's nice if it's also a substance suitable for making coins or some other
sort of trading tokens. (Another virtue of gold is that it's relatively
easy to recognize.))

Also, it's a good thing for the backing commodity to _not_ be something
essential for people's lives, since a great deal of it will be reserved
and not available for other use. (I think that most backing commodities 
have been somewhat frivolous--gold, silver, tobacco, giant stone coins....) 
>
Nancy Lebovitz
nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Labelling laws.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 12:21:42 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec9.080931.4995@genie.slhs.udel.edu> <11336@prijat.cs.uofs.edu>
  <1992Dec12.092316.12864@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>

William Chen writes:

>But to be
>fair, name a nation that has not tried to prevent part of itself from 
>seceeding.  

Czechoslovakia.


    Alan T. Furman         | Don't blame me -- I voted Libertarian
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: gold
Date: 14 Dec 1992 14:07 CST
Organization: GrinchCo
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Ok,  here's what it means to say the price of gold is kept "artificially low"
when your currency is gold backed:

Fort Knox used to contain a huge fraction of the world's refined gold.  If
the U.S. pegs the price of gold at,  say,  20 bucks an ounce and the value
of gold relative to other commodities goes up,  people will trade in their
dollars for gold.

If gold is at its "natural" value,  the amount of gold in FK should be
reasonably constant.  By continually selling gold,  the U.S. could keep
the price artificially low for some time.  But not forever.

Informative St. Grinch
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)
Subject: Re: Wither the gold standard (was: Re: Views? :)
Organization: Jews for Melkor
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:29:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.011406.3695@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <Bz9oBq.M42@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>>In article <1992Dec14.190130.24501@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>|> gold would always be equal to $35, as you say. the problem was not that
>>|> gold wasn't worth $35 anymore, it was that $35 wasn't worth an ounce
>>|> of gold. meaning that the goods which could be had for $35 were
>>|> not worth an ounce of gold given what other countries would pay
>>|> for an ounce of gold.
>>
>>It still doesn't make sense.  With gold backed currency, 35 dollars
>>would be an ounce of gold.  No vendor in the US would treat the two any
>>differently (given 100% confidence in US government).  Prices of gold in
>>other countries would only say something about the transaction costs of
>>moving gold, dollars or whatever "goods" you mention between US and
>>there, or confidence in the US government.
>
>i guess i am not communicating this very well...
>
>if the US government says that an ounce of gold is worth $35, it *will*
>always be that way. but if $35 buys X amount of stuff, and somewhere
>else you can get 2X amount of stuff for one ounce of gold, nobody
>will accept US dollars as currency. so within the US you are fine.
>but outside the US you are in trouble. and this is relevant because
>of the shrinking percentage of the world market that is the US market.

To my mind, the only way a government can say "an ounce of gold
is worth $35" (or shekels, lira, slobotniks...) is if it
accompanies this with a dual offer:

1. Bring $35 in cash to the treasury office, and we'll give you
   an ounce of gold.

2. Bring an ounce of gold to the treasury office, and we'll give
   you $35 in cash.

Both of these offers must be valid in perpetuity. They must be
valid for *anyone* who wants to make the exchange, of whatever
citizenship.

IF the gov't does this, the problems you describe won't happen.
Any merchant will know that he can exchange gold for cash at the
fixed rate, so $1 will just be a more convenient way of having
1/35 of an ounce of gold.

This will be no different in a foreign country.If gold is more
valuable in Slobovia than in the US, than so will dollars be,
because dollars are defined in terms of gold.

Of course, the government can only do this if it has enough gold
reserves to cover all the currency in circulation.
-- 
Andrew Solovay    

"SILENCE = QUIET"
                --Girljock Magazine
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 19:05:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.055848.410@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>The legal mind behind this is the infamous anti-porn jurisprude, Catherine
>MacKinnon, feminist law professor at the University of Michigan.

Jurisprude...I like it.  Thanks for creating a wonderful new label.

                                                James Parker
                                                jap@cb1focus.att.com`
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Seat Belt Laws
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:55:28 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Dec10.052407.426@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:

|"Don't worry, we'll never use this gun registration for confiscation."

I remember a scene from "Red Dawn", just after the Cuban's had invaded.
The commander tells one of his men to go down to the courthouse and get
all of the forms XXYY, which will list everyone who owns a gun.

Not that I expect the US to be invaded anytime soon. 
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Date: 16 Dec 1992 19:57:09 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <lit1ouINN315@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak) writes:

> Answer: When was the last time someone said to you, "I'm sorry, we
> don't accept US dollars in cash OR credit."

Last time I had to pay a government clerk for a traffic offense.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:08:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.193448.4741@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>
>I'm not copying your message to keep the lenght down.  However I'll
>address the points:

i'll try to follow...

>
>1 - Remember were talking commodities of Oil.  Oil will still be in the
>same places (tankers, storage tanks....) it always has been, thought there
>might be a little increase in the storage level.  The government would
>hold Commodity options.

they can't hold commodity options. it's too risky. they would also have
to pay through the nose for them. they have to have the oil.

>1b - Oil in very large quantities iis stored in salt mines not large oil
>tanks.  I'm not sure why everyone keeps talking about multi-billion gallon
>tanks.  Of course that's impracticle.  Just to give you an example of how
>much a slat mine can hold though:  the US govt currently holds 90 days
>worth of US oil consumption in one salt mine!

after all those nice calculations, you make me do this again? :^)

look at it this way. let's suppose i think the government is about to collapse
under a mountain of debt (as WILL happen in the united states *very* soon,
probably within 5 years). i have been saving my money and i want to
cash out my currency because of fear. i can get my life's savings easily
in an amount of gold i can carry in a backpack. also useful if i
decide i want to run away to some other country, which is another one of the
reasons gold is a preferred commodity.

what am i supposed to do with thousands of barrels of oil?
it _simply_doesn't_make_sense_.

>2 - For a currency to be backed in oil.  You must have the right to trade
>both ways.  As one of the gold standard people said:
>$35 - gets a barrel of oil.
>a barrel of oil - gets $35.

i've explained this enough. sorry, i long since reached marginal
returns on this argument.

>3 - What's burning in Kuwait is mixed with natural gas.  NOBODY ever ever
>ships oil long distances in that unstable a condition.  No, gas trucks
>don't count; there not holding much in the way of gas (from an economic
>perspective).  Otherwise oil spills would be no bid deal.  We'd just set
>the oil on fire and poof the whole spill goes up in a puff of flame.

fine -- you can have the combustion point. i still don't want it backing
my currency...

>4 - Unbacked currencies are more suseptable to fluctations is value then
>backed curriencies.  When's the last time a country wouldn't except a
>commodity as payment.  Yet all the time you hear of people not taking
>certain currencies.

so why oil over gold?

>5 - As for a disater with an unbacked currency.  Check out the USSR.

if you have been following my posts you know that i approve of backed
currency philosophically, just not pragmatically. and oil is even worse
than gold is.

remember -- gold is the "standard" for having a "standard". if you think
oil is better, you must so demonstrate. i don't believe you have.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: Gold v. Oil: Backed Currency
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 17:56:48 GMT

In article <JBV=qg+@engin.umich.edu>, positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:

|> ... If a private corporation
|> needs capital, it can go public, print up one billion shares, declare
|> each share to be worth one billionth of the company, and sell them. But
|> if it later decides it needs *more* capital, it *can't* print up another
|> billion, and declare that each share is now worth only one two billionth
|> of the company. Once it sets a value (in percentage of the company) of
|> its shares, that's it.  ...

NOT!  Companies can and do issue new stock.  I have personally been a victim
of this practice and offer first-hand testimony.

========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Non-consensual force and abortion
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:18:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.014203.438@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
}> Contract is informed consent to terms.  It's insufficient for a 
}> person to be informed of the consequences of joining a group.  They 
}> must consent to the terms as well.
}
}the terms of a contract stipulate the consequences of that contract. 
}if someone does not agree to the consequences of a set of terms they 
}shouldn't agree to the terms. by joining the club you agree to the 
}terms of membership, and the consequences that follow.

You assume some formalized method of joining.  It needn't be so.  They
could informally join the club for a dinner to honor the violinist.

}> Many sorority girls may be informed that if they go to a frat boy's 
}> room with him at a party while both are drunk that he may rape her. 
}> This doesn't mean that she consents to it.  It means she may be 
}> reckless, but it doesn't let the rapist off the hook.
}
}the girl still has to live with the consequence. actions speak louder
}than words. recklessness is as good as a contract in the eyes of nature.

"In the eyes of nature?"  Shouldn't "nature" be capitalized if it's to
be thus deified?  Thus: "Nature," as in "Mother Nature"?

}if i walk too near the edge of a cliff & fall off, i may not have 
}consented to sudden deacceleration at the end of the drop, but it's 
}going to happen anyway. in the case of rape you can't, and shouldn't,
}blame it entirely on the girl, as the guy was primarily responsible. 

The guy was entirely responsible.  Otherwise, you're responsible for
getting your car stolen if you park it in a neighborhood you know to be
unsafe.

}in the case of the cliff i can only blame myself. in the case of 
}pregnancy only 2 people are responsible, and it's reprehensible to 
}punish an innocent 3rd party to alleviate that responsibility.

As I've pointed out, this theory by which pregnancy is the result of
the interaction of two parties is flawed.  Suppose a woman gets herself
artificially inseminated by a doctor, then decides not to bear the child;
is the doctor obligated to take on this task?

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
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Views? :
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:33:01 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <#FT=a2-@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.193448.4741@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>
>>2 - For a currency to be backed in oil.  You must have the right to trade
>>both ways.  As one of the gold standard people said:
>>$35 - gets a barrel of oil.
>>a barrel of oil - gets $35.
>>
>
>...and anyone who wants to convert a goodly sum of money has to bring a 
>tanker truck. The whole *point* of a standard (or one of the points,
>actually) is so that people who lack confidence in the issuing body can
>easily convert money back and forth.
>
>-- 
>__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked

	Why is it that you time and time again refuse to accept the
existence of commodity certificates and insist on pretending like people
actual have to cary oil around.  Recently a large chunk of IBM was sold at
the NYSE do you think that they picked up Poughkipse NY carried over to
the exchange building on Wall Street and sold it?!
	Stop with silly tanker stuff.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,osu.opinion.libertarian,osu.opinion,alt.politics.marrou,cmh.opinion,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:36:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.051029.12433@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> fseipel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Frank E Seipel) writes:
>
> Certainly there is a lack of integrity.  Indeed, most members are
>too busy playing golf or enjoying themselves to even make it over
>to the House; anyone ever wonder why C-Span's cameras never pan
>all the seats?  They are not allowed to control the cameras.  Of
>course, lawmakers have given some lame reasons for this restriction,
>such as not wanting to be seen picking their noses on camera <grin>,
>but this could all be edited out.  
> 

Uh, uh. I *want* to see all the (potentially) gorey details broadcast.
Including dozing, digitalization of nasal cavities, tippsiness,  and anything
else in that chamber. Let the citizens decide whether something is
too gross or boring to watch. When they are present in the publically
accessible chamber, during open session, they are subject to public scrutiny
and oversight (we *are*, in theory anyway, their "bosses"). I think
"editing" and restriction of camera angles leaves far too much control
in their hands. "Editing" would also have the potential of being
a fairly potent political weapon in the wrong hands. We might only
see Congressmen X of party Z pick his/her/its nose (and probably see
it rebroadcast ad naseum on the nightly news).

At least it might be amusing if someone started making "Congressional
Bloopers" tapes anyway. :-) :-) :-)

> In truth, little gets done in front of the whole Congress; the
>committees are where all the action is, and special interest groups
>wield enormous power.  I think the reason so many were re-elected is
>the NIMBY syndrome: Not In My Backyard, that is, the belief that
>my representative is wonderful, but the entire Congress is horrible.
>

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

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: The Larger Picture (was Re: Gold Standard? No!)
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:33:34 GMT
Keywords: Gold, zealot, oil

In article <1gkv9qINNjhq@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
|> One minor point: we already have competing currencies.  Every commodity that
|> is traded on the exchanges is a de-facto currency, including national
|> currencies.  With rare exceptions, these all "float".
|> 
|> When I lived in Ecuador, every bank provided currency exchange for a small
|> fee.  Due to rapid inflation, most kept their money either as foreign
|> cash or as acounts in foreign currencies.  That we don't do that in the
|> US is a tribute to the stability of our currency compared to those of the
|> rest of the world.

One catch.  Did you have to pay income tax on your gains in holding the
foreign currency over the national currency?
From: gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold v. Oil: Backed Currency
Date: 18 Dec 1992 14:32 CST
Organization: GrinchCo
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rigel.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec18.175648.24354@inel.gov>, whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray) writes...
 >In article <JBV=qg+@engin.umich.edu>, positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
 > 
 >|> ... If a private corporation
 >|> needs capital, it can go public, print up one billion shares, declare
 >|> each share to be worth one billionth of the company, and sell them. But
 >|> if it later decides it needs *more* capital, it *can't* print up another
 >|> billion, and declare that each share is now worth only one two billionth
 >|> of the company. Once it sets a value (in percentage of the company) of
 >|> its shares, that's it.  ...
 > 
 >NOT!  Companies can and do issue new stock.  I have personally been a victim
 >of this practice and offer first-hand testimony.
 > 


Of course they can,  the analogy is completely wrong.  When a company sells 
new stock it is increasing its assets,  so the value of the stock currently in 
circulation should not change (in theory).  A better analogy to what the
Fed does would be to have the board of directors print up extra stock and keep 
it for themselves.

Mr. Grinch
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: gold
Reply-To: rcollins@1.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:16:37 GMT

In article <14DEC199214070161@venus.tamu.edu>, gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
|> Ok,  here's what it means to say the price of gold is kept "artificially low"
|> when your currency is gold backed:
|> 
|> Fort Knox used to contain a huge fraction of the world's refined gold.  If
|> the U.S. pegs the price of gold at,  say,  20 bucks an ounce and the value
|> of gold relative to other commodities goes up,  people will trade in their
|> dollars for gold.

No they want, because the value of the dollar relative to "other
commodities (not gold)" goes up at exactly the same rate as gold.

|> If gold is at its "natural" value,  the amount of gold in FK should be
|> reasonably constant.  By continually selling gold,  the U.S. could keep
|> the price artificially low for some time.  But not forever.

Theoretically, the US could sell gold until there were no more gold in
FK, at which time there should be no more dollars in the world (except
in FK).  And an oz of gold would still equal the same number of dollars.

I think one of us is not understanding what it means to be gold backed.
I think it means every US dollar is redeemable for a certain amount of
gold in FK.  That certain amount would never change.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: N-C abortion
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:14:28 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Dec13.012822.22393@cbnews.cb.att.com> jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:

|If the mother has the right to abort because giving birth would cost her
|her life, then she has the same right if the costs are lesser.  Being born

Are you sure you want to stand by this statement.
What if I were to say, "If not killing you would cost me my life, then I have
the same right if the costs are lesser."

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com