HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Wither the gold standard (was: Re: View
Date: 16 Dec 1992 01:44:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg8.corp.sun.com

> What discipline now prevents hyperinflation?

The smooth functioning of the currency market. The absence of
debilitating commodity cartels and predictable monetary policy here and
abroad.

-Kris Skrinak
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Subject: Re: Labelling laws.
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 09:13:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.080931.4995@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1g2g5kINN6sh@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>}
>}Be responsible: live up to the
>}demands placed upon you by your employer or your government.  If you don't
>}like them, you are free to change either.

Most people don't have this much freedom.  With the job situation in some
places people are virtually forced to stay at thier jobs (or go on welfare),
and changing the government is becoming harder every election.  I hope our
elections don't become like in the former Soviet Union's: there may be two 
choices, but it really doesn't matter who wins--the bureaucracy will still
run the government.   

>
>Wrong.  We can't secede even if we want to and are justified in doing so.
>The American Empire won't let us.
>
Yeah, self determination is a nice ideal unless some of your own states are 
trying to secede.

>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

William
From: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Date: 16 Dec 1992 19:41:14 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg8.corp.sun.com

> No, you are entirely correct, the Fed does not print money. The Treasury
> Department does. 

[...]

goes on and on...

Looks like we've got a first rate idoit on our hands here. I am tempted
to inform all of the readers here how the 'Fed' technically controls
the money supply. But I haven't had a flame war with such a tenacious
moron in so long that I can't resist.

Out of courtesy, all future correspondence between Messrs. Skrinak and
Haas will be found on alt.flame

Respectfully,

-Kris
From: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Somalia, Liberatarian State
Date: 11 Dec 1992 20:51:56 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg8.corp.sun.com

In article Gpx@wrs.com, gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:
> In article lifc40INNl4u@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM, kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak) writes:
> >
> >Somalia has no taxation, no restrictions on gun possession, no
> >regulation of commerce, no regulation of food or drugs.
> 
> Somalia has no guarantees for the protection of individual rights.

In the liberatarian model, such protections would be provided by a
privately-funded police or military. The local power-mongers simply
acquired guns and funded their own operations through extortion.

The point I am making is that the basis of liberatarianism, that is
the assumptions of liberatarianism, can be analyzed in the Somalian
situation. Anarchy is an excellent case in which to study the assumptions
of any political theory, even our own dem/rep thoeries. Do you deny this?

> >Does Somalia prove that the assumptions upon which liberaterianism is
> >based are not valid?
> 
> Not even.

I guess a two-word response constitues a flame.

I wish someone would consider my argument more carefully and tell me
why I am wrong. I think that the anarchy in Somalia proves answers to
some basic questions about individual freedom and society's reaction to
it. One of those questions is 'Is liberaterianism only possible as a
reaction to our case, as an advanced, over-governed society'?

The answer may well be yes and not damage the principles of the
Liberatarian party. Liberatarianism reamains the best option in the
USA. But not internationally.

Until otherwise proven, I'll continue to contend that liberatarianism
is culturally-based.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 01:36:56 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1gqau1INNnsg@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <37947@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>>What a commodity-based standard does is prevent the arbitrary increase of
>>the supply of money (the original meaning of inflation) by government
>>officials.
>
>If you mean gold-backed dollars, you are sadly mistaken, as history shows.
>When a government says a dollar is backed by 1/35th oz gold, it can claim
>a different quantity the next day.
>

That defeats the purpose of a gold standard. Presumably, the value of a
bill in gold would be printed on the bill (as in, "This bill is redeemable
at the Federal Reserve for 1/500th ounces of gold.")

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:30:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.044058.16557@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.012334.3472@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <11339@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec9.221200.20158@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>>|> 
>>>|> also, if your statement #2 is true, why did gold go up in value by
>>>|> an order of magnitude after the gold standard was *removed*?
>>>|> 
>>>
>>>You are assuming the value of gold went up when it is much more likely that
>>>the value of the pieces of paper actually dropped once they were no longer
>>>tied to anything of real value.
>>
>>say what?
>>i must be missing some important neurons somewhere...
>>
>>what exactly is the difference between the value of gold going up
>>and the value of money going down? they are measured against one
>>another, and since the gold standard was abolished the market has decided
>>that one ounce of gold is worth ten times as many pieces of paper as
>>it was worth before (it was actually 25 times at one point, of course).
>>that is exactly the point i was trying to make.
>>
>>please explain.
>>
>>--
>>charles
>
>The difference is what you can buy.  Say for example that $10=ounce of
>gold.  Then they remove the restrictions.  Now $400 = ounce of gold.  Did
>gold, go up or money go down.  Well, 100 years ago, I could probably buy
>about 100 chickens for an ounce of gold.  Today I could probably do the
>same.  However, I'd be hard pressed to buy a hundred chickens for $10.

ok, i see your difference, thanks. but that reinforces the value of having
a commodity-backed currency, because the only thing which is important
is how many chickens an ounce of gold is worth, or a haircut, or whatever,
not a portrait of george washington.

btw, we are still waiting for the person (i believe it was mr. huben) to respond
to my response to his claim that a backed currency over-values the 
commodity used to back it. that is really the important issue.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: gold
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:13:53 GMT

In article <1gleu3INNjua@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <BzBEyt.GC4@encore.com> rcollins@1.com writes:
>>In article <1gitt6INNhpo@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>|> There's a real question of whether any nation could compete any more with a
>>|> gold-based currency.  No matter what the exchange rate, the other nations of
>>|> the world could simply print currency to buy out all the gold of the GS
>>|> nation.  I suspect that is the reason why no nation now has a currency based
>>|> on any real commodity.
>>
>>Would you sell your gold for currency that was becoming less valuable
>>every day (because it was being printed by the nonGS nation to buy
>>gold)?  I would call it stupid.  Then who would sell them gold for
>>depreciating currency?  In short, only the holders of the nonGS currency
>>would be screwed.  We could also speculate that people would start
>>trading evenly their houses for VCRs, but I wouldn't.
>
>Funny you should mention that last, since that is exactly what's happening
>with our balance of trade in the USA.

not even up.. are you being obtuse intentionally?

>
>Few people are really interested in holding onto currency or gold.
>Instead, they invest.  Two major purposes of currency are to have liquidity
>for transactions and to have commensurate units for comparing values at the
>moment.  Stuffing matresses is archaic, and leads to a very lumpy, cold
>bed if you use gold.  :-)

it wasn't archaic 8 or 10 years ago.

>Riddle me this, Batman.  If gold is such a wonderful standard, why is it that
>no nation (not even Switzerland) has gold backing its currency any more?

because, smartass, there are major monetary policy advantages to not doing
so. HOWEVER, they are contingent on having a reasonable, responsible,
confidence-inspiring government, controlling itself so it doesn't need
gold to do it. Switzerland has one. We do not.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:11:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.190710.629039@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
}A newspaper article I read recently had as a thesis the idea that while
}Libertarians as a party have fairly insignificant ballot-box totals, as
}a movement they have had a strong effect on policy.
}
}They mentioned the recent (and highly successful) term limits crusade,
}saying that prominent libertarians donated cash to term limits
}initiative promoters, and libertarian activists gave support.
}
}The next project?  School vouchers.  Which leads me to my questions:
}
}1) Is there any truth to the contention that the LP, or libertarians in
}general, are supportive of term limits and school vouchers?

Yep.  And the Cato Institute's management and backers supported US Term
Limits, which passed in 14 states this past election, and are also involved
in getting school vouchers passed at the initiative level.

}2) Are these small-l libertarian proposals?

Both, except for some purists who seem to agree with you.

}As far as I can see, term-limits is a way of restricting who can run for
}office and who citizens can vote for.  I can't see this as a libertarian
}proposal.  This "stop me before I vote again" thing is profoundly
}anti-liberty, IMHO.  The law should step in and prevent people for
}voting for an incumbent?

The short answer is, yes.  It should.  One reason is that studies have
shown that there's a direct correlation between incumbency duration and
spending.  The higher the first is, the higher the second tends to be.

}And school vouchers is a way of destroying private schools as an
}institution by making them semi-public.  Really, now, once this voucher
}system becomes law, the next step is to say that a private school must
}bow down to the government in the following zillion ways before they can
}accept vouchers.

If and only if the law doesn't include language to bar such a thing that
will hold up in court, as CA's Parental Choice In Education initiative,
to be on the ballot in 1994, has.  That is, it has language in it to this
effect, but who knows what will hold up in court.

}School vouchers are a conservative, elitist, populist proposal -- not a
}libertarian one.  What's going on here?

Actually, they're Milton Friedman's idea.  Granted, so was the witholding
tax, which he's since recanted, but he's a hell of a libertarian.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Question: Foreign Policy Issues
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:57:02 GMT

In article <724178044snz@keris.demon.co.uk> chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec8.151436.9552@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
>           starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes:
>
>>Hope we win you over.  Damn few female libertarians.  Pity.
>
>Why?  No, I don't mean "Why is it a pity?" - why are there so few female
>libertarians?  Is there something about the policies that puts them off?
>Is there something in the attitudes of prominent libertarians which
>seems to exclude women?

I can't speak for women in general, of course (and it's hard to catch
up with all the women who aren't libertarians and ask them why they
aren't).
>
I don't know about prominent libertarians, but in _Reason_ and _Liberty_
(the two libertarian publications I follow), I've seen altogether too
much of the "asshole conservative humor" aren't-feminists-ridiculous
sort of articles, and no countervaling stuff. I don't feel entirely
welcome as a result.

I don't agree with a good bit of feminism, but I've also gotten a great
deal of value from feminism, and a lot of it has to do with liberty and
a sense of my own value. I don't see any recognition of the more valuable
parts of feminism in libertarianism, and I do see a lot of mockery.

Nancy Lebovitz
nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Labelling laws.
Date: 14 Dec 1992 18:35:09 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Dec13.105242.7647@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> I know plenty of libertarians who'd like to
>liberate themselves a little bit by taking over a US county government.
>That way, they'd control the court, sheriff, coroner, etc.  Then they
>could privatize almost everything, have IRS agents and others arrested
>for vagracy ("no legitimate means of support") if they enter the area,
>jail 'em, and have the coroner pronounce them dead :-).
>
>However, they're being so oppressed by confiscatory taxation, regulation,
>etc., that they can't even do this!  Much less the free country projects
>which have failed due to Statist intervention.
>
>Mike, you just don't know what you're talking about on this.

Oh, right.  There's no incremental benefit to establishing partial
libertarianism: only if you go 100% should you look to any demonstrable
competitive benefit.  Gee, even the Maharishi promises better if only
1% start practicing TM.

You want to start your own nation?  Go ahead.  The Israelis did.  Without
ancient animosities to hinder you, you could probably bribe a nation to
support your secession of a province and sponsor you into the UN.  There is
no shortage of desperately poor nations with whom you could contract (and
with whose population of that province you could contract).  If Israel can
build an industrial nation in a desert, I don't know why libertarians
couldn't try.  Put your money where your mouth is: Jews worldwide have
demonstrated it works.  Try Guyana or Surinam.

Now some may point to the fact that Israel has been subsidized both by
our government and by private contributions of Jews.  That shouldn't be
any obstacle to libertarians: they should be able to solicit both of those
just as easily.

Enough heroic anarcho-capitalist fiction!  Let's see some heroic anarcho-
capitalist reality.  Horatio Alger would be proud of you.

Mike Huben

"Utopias now appear much more realizable than one used to think.  We are now
faced with a different new worry: How to prevent their realization."
						Nicolas Berdiaeff
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:49:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.205810.5848@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.195702.6333@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>>In article <724178044snz@keris.demon.co.uk> chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Dec8.151436.9552@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
>>>           starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes:
>>>

[stuff deleted for bandwidth]

>	I think this is topic worth discussing.  Why are so many
>libertarians opposed to feminism?  

Here are some guesses--many (though not all) feminists are Marxists and
detest the free market. Many libertarians seem to be somewhat conservative
-flavored (at least some major libertarian magazines are) and most
conservatives really detest feminism. (I think that this is partly a
result of real flaws in feminism, and partly that many conservatives
are used to thinking of women's concerns as trivial and don't want to
change.)

I don't consider myself a feminist, but I've been willing to look into
feminism enough to find a good bit that I like. If you're a libertarian
and just take a fast look at feminism, you just see the Marxism and
get disgusted.

(Comes to that, I don't think that Marxism is total nonsense--I've come
to believe that class is important--I just don't think that it's central.
I do think that it's easy to be unconscious of the conditioning (class
and other) that you've received, and that it's worth taking some trouble
to find out what you've been conned into believing and undo it.)

Nancy Lebovitz
nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:2691 alt.politics.marrou:2414 cmh.opinion:35 alt.politics.elections:24622 alt.president.clinton:1116
From: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,osu.opinion.libertarian,osu.opinion,alt.politics.marrou,cmh.opinion,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:39:23 GMT
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

: >
: >     Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich:
: >          He is the proud owner of 22 rubber checks. 
: 
: Tilt.  There were no rubber checks or bounced checks.  What people have
: been complaining about is that a number of Congresspeople took advantage
: an overdraft protection provision that their bank provided them.  True,
: it was a better deal than the overdraft protection i had in my Federal
: Credit Union account (i had to pay interest -- they did not if their 
: checks would be covered by their next incoming paycheck [which by the 
: way was guaranteed, the bank did not have to worry about them being
: laid off or fired or their employer going Chapter 13].) but it was
: not check bouncing.
: 
: You may criticise the bank for having such a policy, but there is no
: basis, except jealousy) for criticizing the members for taking advantage
: of it.  It harmed noone.  The creditors received their money on time.
:

Lets not forget that this "overdraft protection" amounted to thousands of
dollars in many cases. Also, interest free loans must be reported to the IRS.
If any of us little people did what our imperial Congress has done, We'd be
audited, and be forced to pay hefty fines. All the more for our Imperial
Congress to spend.

Felix Gorney
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Japan vs USA
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:42:55 GMT

Sean -
	Excellent factoid on the Roman empire!  I saved that one to disk
for future reference.  However, it seems to if anything it proves the
value of:
1)  A currency backed heavily by its commodity.
2)  Stable monatary policy. 
	On #1 we agree, a discussion of #2 will take us way off track.  

Now to respond to the rest of the post:

	With regard to having to work for an alternative currency if the
dollar ceases to be the "currency of choice", I agree; it seems convient
for this to be dollars.  Again however, I'm not an economist.  Just
because something seems helpful does not necesarily mean it is.  I do
however agree with you, that the yen might become the currency of choice. 
Once I've heard stronger arguments as to why this is bad rather than
inconvient, I'll grant your point.
	Further, I think your Russia analogy is poor one.  Russia has been
hyperinflating their currency, to balance the budget. Note that many small
currencies even if they inflate frequently (like the peso) are still
accepted for international trade.  Russia is just going through a currency
collapse, which is a result of bad monatary policy; not a result of a bad
economy.

	It seeems that your conceeding my point that under your view of
Japanesse trade their going to stuck with a lot "worthless paper".  I saw
this as a refutation to your original argument.  You however seem to
believe this is their goal.  So I put the question to you:  assuming your
correct why would the Japanesse work their buts off solely to damage the
American economy?  what would cause this degree of anger towards us?

	As for the income statistics, you requested sources.  I've heard
this time and time again; off the top of my memory:
1)  The National Review
2)  CNN
3)  The new republic.
4)  C-Span, today on the "post economic conference".  that's a specific
source so if your want a transcript ....

	As for your argument of standard of living through the roof.  You
refuted by mentioning home ownership.  Except in 1991 ownership has gone
up as a percentage every year since the WWII.  Its also a very poor
measure of standard of living.  the reason being that the cost of modern
house is primarily the cost of the real estate.  The more advaced our
society becomes the more real estate will cost....  This is the opposite
of most other definitions of standard of living, used throughout the world.

--JMB