HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:16:25 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov8.232622.26405@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:

|>Philosophically, the answer is clear: natural
|>aptitudes must not affect social position in a negative way
|>(that would be unfair to the person with the aptitude), but
|>neither should those aptitudes lift the person above the rest
|>(that would be unfair to the people WITHOUT the aptitude).

And here you have the reason why egalitarianism as a philosophy fails
and as an economic system is disasterous.

I suppose that everyone has an equal right to be a computer programmer,
without regard to training or ability.  Or everyone has an equal right
to be a pro football player.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1593 alt.society.anarchy:657
From: young@wattle.dg.oz (Philip Young)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: the most equitable economic system
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:14:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: Data General Australia

|> glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
|>  
|> >However if a serious commitment was made to VOLUNTARY
|> >non-propertarianism, we might have a system that far exceeds capitalism
|> >in OVERALL quality.  Emotional as well as material quality.  Voluntary
|> >non-propertarianism is not an economic system that is enforced top
|> >down like communism.   It is purely based on individual choice, and
|> >is possible under all systems.  It doesn't mean you have to give
|> >all you own away today,  it's a gradual thing, where people
|> >come to value themselves more for thier contribution toward meeting
|> >the needs of everyone, rather than on how much wealth they can
|> >hoard.  It would be similar to charity under a capitalistic system,
|> >but there would be far more commitment to other people.   It's a
|> >gradual shift from cutthroat competition to compassionate cooperation.
|> >The thing I like about this most of all is that it doesn't attack the
|> >government, it simply makes the government IRRELEVANT.

This is silly!  It's a bit like Christians saying "if only everybody in
the world would stop sinning" (which they are, by and large, far too wise
to do).  Property is all about control of finite resources.  Ownership
equals control.  If you cede ownership, to whom do you cede it?  A committee?
Any bureaucratic disposition of resources is bound to be less-than-optimal
from one's own point of view (best possible case is that they make the same
decision you would). You are really asking people to voluntarily act against
their own best interests (as perceived by them ... but who better to judge?).

-- 
Philip R. Young                  | 1.79E+12 furlongs per fortnight ...
Data General Australia Pty. Ltd. | It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: Michael F. Kamprath <kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: The Draft
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 13:20:39 EST
Organization: University of Michigan, Aerospace Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A72021AB3D02C4FC@sprl-mac2016.sprl.umich.edu>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 6 Nov 92 19:20:43 GMT

In article <Pl==9VA@engin.umich.edu> Jonathan Scott Haas, positron@engin.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.035044.27485@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
>Scott.Maxwell@launchpad.unc.edu (Scott Maxwell) writes:
>>
>>So
>>suppose that there were an impending invasion but too few volunteers to
>>defend the country against it. (Just suppose; it's a thought experiment.)
>>In such a case, does the right of the majority of citizens to be protected
>>against invasion outweigh the right of the young and able-bodied to refuse
>>to place themselves in harm's way? If not, doesn't this severely limit
>>the government's ability to perform one of its primary functions?
>>
>

Who says that just the young and able-bodied can defend this nation.  True,
they would be the best performers under military duty, but if this nation was
being invaded, everybody can contribute somehow.  Remeber, a good defense
is more that the men and women who carry guns, its includes the factory workers
who make their weapons, the farmers who make their food, the sewers who
make their clothes, etc etc etc.

Now, the question should be restated that if the majority of the people are
not willing to contribute somehow to the defense of the nation, is the
government obligated to defend it?

>My personal view (although I consider myself a Libertarian, I certainly
>do not speak for the party) is this. A country in which not enough people
>are willing to volunteer to defend it is a country which deserves to fall.
>I doubt this will happen, but if an invasion of America is threatened, and
>American citizens are unwilling to sign up and defend America, then throw
>wide the gates and welcome the invaders, because America will surely fall.
>

True, but keep in mind what I said above.

========================================================================
| Michael F. Kamprath                   | The University of Michigan   |
|   kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu |      Aerospace Engineering   |
|   kamprath@engin.umich.edu            |      Graduate Student        |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| This country is a _democracy_.  We all must take responsibility for  | 
| our government's actions because we the people are legally the basis |
| of its existence.  This means that we all owe at least $10,000 each  |  
| on the national debt.  You can't get something for for free.         |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.politics.bush
From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Inauguration Speech
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:35:48 GMT

In article <1d9ou1INNmdr@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.215202.13460@EE.Stanford.EDU> bill@isl.Stanford.EDU (Bill Moore) writes:
>..

>>Why is it that so many computer types are libertarians?
>
>
>Because: 
>
>1. They are used to the logical nature of computers.

Ok, that's fair.

>2. They tend to think people are like computers.

Really?  Where in libertaria does it stipulate or try to assume that
people think like computers.

>3. They ignore the fact that behind every "logical" choice of a human
> 	is an emotional mind set.

How so?  How does libertaria ignore that every logical choice is in
fact an emotional decision?

>4. Libertaria says that the best way to run a world is by logic.

Now this is a distortion bordering on a lie.  Libertaria says the best
way to run the world is through a minimum of coercion necessary to
keep things fairly stable.  They don't want to *run* the world so much
as let people run themselves, so long as they don't start killing one
another, stealing from one another, or defrauding one another.

And pray tell me, how does any other ideology run then?  If not by
logic, then are you saying other ideologies are run by emotions?  That
their ideological leaders shall emote to decide?

>Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se (Mark Steph)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:58:24 GMT
Reply-To: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

Well, you seem to be up on Objectivist happenings since "the purge," so I 
have a question.  What are some good objectivist writers outside of "the
inner circle?"  Can you suggest some titles?

I pretty much dropped out (in disgust) following the David Kelley incident 
(and the local objectivists doing a telephone poll to determine who was "in"
and who was "out".)
---
Mark Steph               | The most endangered species--The honest man
exumfs@exu.ericsson.se   | Will still survive anninilation
(yes, .se *is* in Texas) | Forming a world--State of integrity
PO Box 833875, MS L-05   | Sensitive, open, and strong
Richardson, TX 75083     |      -Neil Peart, "Natural Science"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: The Draft
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:38:24 PST

In article <1d9ruaINN478@armory.centerline.com>, on 5 Nov 1992 01:04:09 GMT,
mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

>
>In article <19921104143200ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
>>In article <1d42ulINNmr@armory.centerline.com>, on 2 Nov 1992 20:27:01 GMT,
>>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>>
>>>The constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, even when we disagree
>>>with them.  Their rulings make explicit the meanings as new circumstances
>>>(such as the draft or income taxes) arise.                             eement,
>>>
>>Your mistake is that you confuse metaphorical language with literal
>>meaning. The Constitution is exactly what is says within. It is true
>>that the government will enforce as law the spin that the Supremes give
>>to the Constitution, but that does not change the contents one iota.
>
>Ah, "inerrant constitutional literalists wanted: please apply for appointments
>to the supreme court".
>
Well, sometimes the language in the Constitution is crystal clear and
there is no ambiguity whatsoever. And despite this, the Supreme Court
has made rulings in conflict with this meaning. Witness the absolutely
clearcut violations of the 4th Amendment's unlawful search and seizure
in the Asset Forfeiture Laws. Or the ruling that a man growing marijuana
in his back yard for his personal use
was liable to federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause.
WHen the Supreme Court makes rulings contrary to what the Constitution
says, they are not redefining meaning. They are violating their oaths
and should be impeached.

This is not to say that the Constitution is never vague and capable of
interpretation. For example, cruel and unusual punishment is inherently
relative to the customs of a particular society  at a particular time.
However, a shamefully high number of rulings are made counter to what
is actually stated in the text.

>
>But, being human, we need humans to interpret a deliverately vague
>document.  If the supreme court holds a gun to our heads and tells us
>that the constitution means something that clearly isn't so, or even that
>we just don't like, it is supremely easy to ammend the constitution to
>make it explict and clear enough that if they continue to disagree,
>their impeachment is trivial.
>
This is a typical left-liberal fiction. I surprised that you don't give
us the rest of the "living, breathing, expanding document" picklepoop
as well. Find me even just one contemporary source among the framers
of the Constitution who gives the slightest bit of substantiation to
your assertion of the Constitution's deliberate vagueness.

>Mike Huben
>
>"An Atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support."
>                                                [Bishop] Fulton Sheen
>
        =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 6 Nov 1992 14:46:25 CST
From: <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Public Goods that libertarians acknowledge.
 <1dbctvINN5b8@armory.centerline.com>
 <1992Nov6.100313.29052@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
 <1de4ujINN6st@armory.centerline.com>

List of Legitimate public goods:
According to D Freidman:

According to watkins@earth.eecs.uic.edu (id! Brian E Watkins):


---------
-watkins@earth.eecs.uic.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1748 alt.society.anarchy:690
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Objectivism?
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 15:54:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct31.040548.15801@eecs.nwu.edu> ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland) writes:
>In article <Q++=4T#@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>>Could someone please tell me what the "conflict" between Libertarianism
>>and Objectivism is?

>As I understand it, based on hearsay and having read one of Rand's
>essays on libertarianism, the main problem is that libertarianism (at
>least some species of it) does not espouse the view that there is an
>objective morality.  You probably remember how much this was talked
>about in _Atlas_Shrugged_.

That's part of it, but it goes even deeper.  Objectivists (me included)
say that one cannot have a consistent political philosophy without 
a corresponding moral philosophy, which one cannot have without a 
consistent epistemological philosophy, which cannot be justified without
metaphysical premises. 

The result of ignoring this is that the LP contains "advocates of liberty"
who mean a thousand different things when they use the word "liberty".
There are even "Libertarians for Life" out there who oppose abortion.

--Brian
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:24:05 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <1992Nov3.002719.4221@telesciences.com> msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct25.024349.28577@tamsun.tamu.edu>, rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>>Hmmm.  It says here:
>>   16th Amendment
>>      The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
>>   incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment
>>   among the several States and without regard to any census or
>>   enumeration.
>
>Summary: Taxation without representation isn't so bad after all.
>
>>Seems pretty Constitutional to me.  There are many abuses of the 
>>Constitution, but the Personal Income Tax would seem to be excepted.
>
>Maybe the following question has already been beaten to death in
>libertarian circles, but I may as well raise it since I haven't seen it
>discussed here yet.
>
>The 5th Amendment says that private property shall not be taken for
>public use without just compensation.  Yet, every other week I notice
>that 1/4 of my private property has been confiscated from my paycheck
>without just compensation given.  I don't consider waste, fraud, and
>abuse by elected representatives to be just compensation.
>
>Has the 16th Amendment completely superseded the 5th?  The two aren't
>incompatible, really.  An income tax would be more bearable if I
>received something in return of equal value, but I don't.

  It would be reasonable to conclude that later ammendments supersede
earlier ones or it would be difficult to rescind them (as in Prohibition).

  In any case, unfortunately for you, paying taxes in not a marketplace
function (which you Libertarians seem to worship as the end and be all of
existence) and so you do not get to establish value, worth, price, etc.
all on your own. Sorry, one just has to accept civic responsibility over
personal preference and self-interest on some things.


-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: ceb1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad Edward Brown)
Subject: where are the totals?
Keywords: Marrou/Lord totals...NOT
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 06:00:13 GMT

So, CNN was SUPPOSED to report our totals.  It didn't happen,
but I don't think it was directly their fault.  The excuse
they gave at Midnight Central Time was that "many local
election clerks don't bother to count minor party totals
on election night".

I say free the drug war casualties and put these clerks
in prison for election fraud!

Does anyone have any idea how we're really doing?  I called
Associated Press who said we have 2,048 votes with 48% of
the votes counted.  This is obviously wrong.  Hopefully, it's
more like 2,048,000.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 11:43:52 GMT

In article <19921106100208ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
}What in the world has been going on with Murray Rothbard anyway? I
}consider his two books _For a New Liberty_, and _The Ethics of Liberty_
}to be excellent treatments of the principles and the philosophy of
}Libertarianism. And his book titled _The Mystery of Banking_ is an
}excellent introduction on the subjects of money and banking easily
}intelligible to the non-economist.  Earlier this year he wrote a
}well-reasoned op ed piece that appeared in the Los Angeles Times which
}lambasted the trivial reductions in the military budget and the picayune
}tax cuts that were being proposed at the time.
}
}If he actually endorsed bigots and protectionists like Buchanan and
}Perot and Bush, I am forced to conclude that he has become non compos
}mentis.

And "Man, Economy, and State" is good, too, except I disagree with him that
fractional reserve banking is necessarily fraudulent.  The speculation I find
most plausible is that he and Rockwell are wooing the money out of the pockets
of the Christian Right.


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
Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: jefft@chirality.rsa.com (Jeff Thompson)
Subject: Environmental laws - in principle.
Organization: RSA Data Security, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:41:19 GMT


I was trying to explain that honest people should be free to do
whatever they want.  If it turns out that using a CFC emitting
refrigerator in the privacy of my own home really does help wreck the
planetary atmosphere that everyone depends on, then libertarianism has
no problem with making this illegal, right?  Don't flame about CFCs.
I know about the ozone layer and global warming hoaxes, etc.  I'm
talking in principle:

Libertarianism has no problem with enforcing laws like laws against
murder.  If using some envirnomentally damaging product "X" in my own
home really does have a victim, which is your air, then there's no
problem with making it illegal. No?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Keywords: Objectivism Libertarianism Marxism Anarchism
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 12:36:48 GMT

In article <Bx44pE.44I@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
}The marxists call themselves "anarcho-communists" (among other things).
}They aren't the majority, but they are not rejected.  There are also

Name 'em.  I haven't ever met any.  Who are they?  Where do they live?  What
do they do in the LP?  How do they get along with refugees from communist
countries in the LP like Tibor Machan or Attila Csanyi?

}anti-abortion libertarians, pro-drug libertarians (as opposed to pro-
}legalization libertarians), religious libertarians, cryonics fans, 
}environmentalist libertarians (similar to the greens), hawk libertarians,
}dove libertarians, atheist libertarians, pro-space libertarians, 
}primitivistic libertarians, and 100 other kinds.

So what?  Do you mean to imply that there is something wrong with this pluralism
and that each and every one of these kinds is immoral?

}>I know that
}>Libertarians do not advocate jailing people for their views, so
}>this question is directed from the opposite perspective:  would 
}>an anarchist or Marxist want a Libertarian government?
}
}Well, tossing people into jail for their views is not an essential feature
}of marxism (not that it doesn't follow, but if you ask marxists if they
}favor intellectual freedom, they'll tell you they do).  A marxist
}libertarian would say that he's in favor of liberty, and wht he means by
}that is that people ought to be free of the power of capitalism.  They need
}to be liberated from their economic chains by adopting (oh so voluntarily
}of course) a "from each according to his ability - to each according to his
}need" philosophy".  Have you never talked to a marxist?  They say they are
}100% in favor of liberty.

Oh, please.  I've tried to convince marxists that they should support
private property rights consistently, and most of 'em have rejected me on
this.

}marxists view themselves as agents of liberation, and that's why you
}find them in the LP.

This is completely unsubstantiated and unverifiable.


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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: No LP Presidential Candidate in '96!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:19:43 GMT

It seems that we might accomplish a lot more by devoting our resources
to races we can win.  As someone said earlier, people are voting Perot (or
Clinton or Bush) for President and then Libertarian downticket.  We're not
going to win a Presidential race until we have Libertarian Senators and
Representatives, so why put the cart before the horse?

Why not take the resources that we're dumping into pointless Presidential
campaigns and devote them to Congressional candidates?  We might actually
be able to make a difference that way.  I mean, if we *must* have a
presidential candidate, let's just make it a paper candidacy and utilize
our resources more efficiently.

Steve
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Nancy Lord for U.S. Senate!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1715 alt.society.anarchy:679