HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mece3d@jane.uh.edu (Chris Struble)
Subject: Re: Libertarians (lost the original subject) (LONG)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:12:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.033517.7399@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes...
>In article <54120@hydra.gatech.EDU> dsm@prism.gatech.EDU (Danny McGurl) writes:
>>In article niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> 
>>[Lots of stuff deleted]
> 
>>:And how did you *gain* your property originally, if it wasn't through
>>:the initiation of force?  Yes, you might have inherited it, or bought
>>:it, but how did the original owner get it without initiating force?
> 
>>You sit on it and say "this is mine".  Ever hear of the homestead act?
> 
>Um, excuse me?   If we're limiting government actions to protecting
>people's rights, then I don't think the homestead act is allowed.
> 
>What gives the government the right to give away land?

  Nothing. They never own it in the first place. You "own" it by nobody
else being around who wants it (in the sense of being in a position to
or willing to work the land). Unless the government has immediate plans
to use it, they have no more claim on it than does anybody else. 

For the political theory, read John Locke's "Second Treatise on Civil
Government", in particular the section "On Property". Most of the
Founding Fathers did - in fact, much of early American common law is
based on this concept of property.

For the application, read the history of the American West.

>-- 
>David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
>niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
>"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."


------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Christian Struble	   |  To shield people from the consequences   |
|  Mechanical Engineering  |  of their own folly is to fill the	       | 
|  University of Houston   |  world with fools  		       |	
|  mece3d@jetson.uh.edu	   |    	Herbert Spencer		       |	
------------------------------------------------------------------------	
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17264 ca.politics:3356 ba.politics:2598 alt.politics.homosexuality:1827
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
From: mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 16:10:12 PDT
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:

> Nope.. I don't think that... But if they are running around trading
> weenies like that - NO WONDER AIDS is so damn prevalent.

Trading weenies???  hehehe...


> 
> "gee all we do is screw anything that moves - whats wrong with it?"

God dammit, D.K., hold still!!!



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US -- cerritos.edu!batpad!mike
[] Long Beach, California
[] TNG Quote: "You were travelling in close formation at over 80,000 kph, only
[] 10 meters from Cadet Albert, and you didn't even know his orientation?!?"
From: 76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: CompuServe election poll results, new poll
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:03:17 GMT

In the most recent CompuServe poll, 9% of the respondents said they would
vote for Marrou if the election were held today. I believe Buchannan got
6%, and Tsongas got less. ...BUT WHO DOES THE NATIONAL MEDIA COVER!?!? [A
note here, in another question, 7% of the respondants considered
themselves "other" with respect to political party. Choices were
Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Other.]

The poll is restarted every two weeks and has restarted recently. It
restarts at the beginning and middle of the month.

To Compuserve's credit, they have revised the political party question to
include a new alternative. It now lists: Republican, Democrat,
Libertarian, Independent, and Other!!!! A SMALL BUT IMPORTANT VICTORY!!!

Andre Marrou did well on the Tom Snyder show last night. The call-in
number I posted had been changed from 800-248-0852 to 800-756-0852. The
interview was 10-11 pm ET, but the east coast station I recommended, WBT
in Charlotte had a 1 hour tape delay. I also said he was on NBC radio- he
is on ABC radio. My confusion was because he used to be on KYW-TV 3 in
Philadephia, an NBC affiliate, in the mid-60s and was later on the NBC
network with his TV show, "Tomorrow" in the 70s. Tom Snyder himself gave
out the LP's 800 number, 1-800-682-1776 and seemed to agree with most of
what Rep Marrou had said. 

I learned that Rep Marrou was instrumental in repealing Alaska's state
income tax years ago. It was 16% of the payer's federal income tax.

****
USA: Do to Bush in 92, as we in Florida did to Martinez in 90!

	




Distribution:
  talk-politics-misc internet:talk-politics-misc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  Libernet internet:libernet@dartmouth.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: The erudite National Review picks on Bill CLinton's daughter
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:31:38 GMT

In article <farenebt.703432120@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri) writes:
>john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>>National Review, like most opinion magazines, also has some humour in
>>it. They make fun of all sorts of things. So what?
>
>I just didn't expect it to pick on a 13 year old child. I expect that
>a candidate will be picked on, and I also expect that a candidates
>wife (or in some cases, husband) may come under scrutiny but I don't
>expect their teenage child to be picked on for her name.

You must be too young to remember all the fun people had with Jimmy
Carter's daughter and mother and brother and hometown.  For instance,
I remember a skit on Saturday Night Live where they showed secret
service agents helping Amy Carter cheat on a test.
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:18:31 GMT
	<1992Apr7.005733.1836@reed.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.


(Philip Moore) writes:
   Anectdotal stories about Perot's off the cuff comments regarding violent
   neighborhoods may make your libertarian ideologies flare into full flame,
   but are you willing to sacrifice any hope of ever really making a difference
   by directing your rhetorical skills against a fellow challenger of the
   status quo?

Unfortunately they're more than off-the-cuff comments.  Actions speak
louder than words, and Perot's sallies into his employees' personal
lives are sufficient for me to oppose him.  The man has one critical
and damning failing---on "morality" he thinks he knows it all.  I'd
rather have Bush---at least he is controlled by political expediency.
The ol' china shop may be in need of rearranging, but I don't want to
let a bull in.

Let's take one other example---the dress code that EDS was famous for.
This is indeed important in projecting a certain image to EDS's big
corporate customers, and may have been an essential part of Perot's
accumulation of billions of dollars; but what does it say about the
man:  once again that he was more than willing to kowtow to bigwig
prejudice, and to convention, and to think nothing of unnecessarily
taking personal choices away as a condition of employment, all to make
a buck.

My one and only question about the man is:  Who will protect me from
H.Ross Perot if he becomes President?
--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Let your mind go, and your body will follow.
                   _L.A._Story_
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     (^^above part of .sig stolen, but heck, it's my name^^)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mikea@psdslc3.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:43:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <22572@goofy.Apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:

>Like we have a zillion choices here.  Talk about drawing a bad hand.  Can I
>get a new set of cards (candidates) please?

Face it folks. We're in for another 4 years of Bush. But that's OK, because
by 1996, some medium-sized city in the world will have received a personal
demonstration of what a backpack a-bomb can do, the world economy will have
resorted to drastic measures to head off global starvation, and Bush will
either have died of old age or be incarcerated. Just go with the flow...

Remember, you read it here first!
								   MPA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17717 alt.society.civil-liberty:3364 alt.individualism:2383 misc.taxes:2205 alt.politics.elections:718
From: dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,misc.taxes,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Employee vs. Employer rights (was Re: What keeps me from being Lib.)
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:17:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

In <1992Apr10.152445.8551@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>The status quo position is that most employment is "at will" with
>exceptions. So, an employee can be fired for almost any reason or no
>reason but not for sex, race, religion, union status. These exceptions
>were developed over time in response to problems.

My own personal belief is that business relationships should not be
restricted any more or any less than personal relationships.  I.e., if
it's illegal to fire an employee for some reason (e.g. religion) then it
should also be illegal to divorce a spouse for the same reasons.  If it's
illegal to refuse to hire an employee for union status than it should
also be illegal to refuse to marry somebody for that reason.  The basic
philosophy I am espousing is that the presence or absence of a business
motive should generally not determine whether an action is legal or
illegal.

A good compromise for all sides would be to require that nobody be fired
without cause unless adequate notice is given (e.g. 4 weeks).  This
protects employees' interests as well as allowing employers flexibility
in how they do business.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.COM>
UUCP:  oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
From: dma@lacewing.unx.sas.com (Dawn Amos)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Airline deregulation (was Re: more info on Perot)
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:24:01 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: dma@lacewing.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 2306

In article <sccdmINNhpe@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
|> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> >In article <82A602f5c8ss00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
|> >>
|> >>[Perot on] Deregulation of airlines:
|> >>  "A sad situation brought on by people who don't understand business.  If
|> >>and when I"m ever up here, I do understand business and we will not implode
|> >>whole segments of an industry... The fact is we didn't get cheaper airplane
|> >>tickets, we got more expensive airplane tickets."
|>
|> >I believe this is factually incorrect.  Does anyone have the exact figures?

[According to the Brookings Institution, it's $15 billion dollars a
year saved.  rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)]
|>
|> The ticket prices went up, but not as fast as inflation, so if you
|> adjust figures we're paying less.  Of course there are fewer airlines
|> to chose from, longer delays, the planes are more crowded... dirty...
|>
|> Even if the prices didn't go up as fast as inflation (and some have,
|> BTW...  just not the average), deregulation isn't doing what the
|> government told us it would do.

Seems to me I was paying $380-420 for cross country trips in
1978 and that's what it costs now ($340 at slow times).  For
a very brief span around '81 I could get over and back for
a couple hundred.  I believe that shorter trips used to be
priced artificially high in comparison, but now it's a bit
more of a function of distance.

But I worked for Eastern for three years, and can assert that
tens of thousands of airline workers suffered anxiety (at the
least) and instability/layoffs/joblessness each day since.
"Implode" is a painfully accurate term for what happened to
the industry.  We had a handful of big companies "controlling"
prices in the 70's, and we have a handful now whose price "wars"
aren't very aggressive any more.  What's the difference?

On one hand, I'm not sure that disruption was warranted for
what little effect it had on the consumer; on the other, it
did seem that the airlines, like the auto industry, needed to
face the challenges of genuine competition by restructuring
creatively and efficiently.  I wonder how Ross might have
encouraged that without the deregulation detonation?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
From: mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 16:09:05 PDT
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:

> mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor) writes:
> > And there's nothing you can do about it.  Neener neener.
> > 
> 
> Sure there is. Plant a flower for each hunted looking little
> child I see being drug around like a prize puppy dog by some
> swaggering snorting 'queer lady'.

A bare garden, indeed, since you have never seen any such thing, and
never will.

> To inflict that life on someone who has no choice is a crime
> against humanity.

Boo hoo.  I find it increasingly difficult to take you seriously, D.K.
(hint, hint)



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US -- cerritos.edu!batpad!mike
[] Long Beach, California
[] TNG Quote: "You were travelling in close formation at over 80,000 kph, only
[] 10 meters from Cadet Albert, and you didn't even know his orientation?!?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,misc.legal,alt.discrimination
From: kranzer@adx.adelphi.edu (Herbert C. Kranzer)
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Organization: Adelphi University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:23:38 GMT

lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:

>One of the seemingly innocuous events that has prodded me gently away
>from previous socialist leanings and toward the Libertarians was walking
>into a Massachusetts barber shop with my two young children (boy 7 and
>girl 5), asking for simple haircuts, and being told with horrified
>intonation proclaiming me some kind of ignoramus (but every
>retailer around the dungheaps of Boston and New York act like that):
>"Oh, we can't cut the little girl's hair---we don't have the license."

>Now it's bad enough that the State licenses barbers at all (I didn't
>need a license to grease cars in high school, and that had far greater
>safety implications), but requiring additional training and certification
>to perform the identical procedure on a member of the other sex has
>to be the ultimate in lunacy.

>Then there are taxicab licenses (in towns where you can never find
>a free cab).

>Oh, well, that's statist democracy, I guess...  (I agree with Brown
>about the corruption of government and the power of special interests;
>I just wonder whether _he_ believes himself.)

Although I do not consider myself a Libertarian, I cannot resist posting
yet another example of this mindless state-inspired credentialism.

In my town, the local water-supply district requires an annual
inspection of all automatic lawn-sprinkler systems in order to make sure
that chemicals sprayed on the lawn cannot back up into the tap water
inside the house.  This inspection consists of visually checking two
valves in the basement for possible leaks.  Any homeowner should be
capable of doing this for him/herself, and has a very obvious interest
in doing so, namely the health of his/her family.  However, the state in
its wisdom has decreed that the inspection must be performed by a
licensed inspector who has completed a special "training program".
Of course, these inspectors, with their state-imposed monopoly, charge
fifty bucks for the "service" and make you wait around all day to let
them in.

I realize that this is only a minor annoyance compared with Lee's
haircut story, but it does involve an unnecessary state-mandated intrusion 
into a private home.  Who needs it?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: zwicky@erg.sri.com (Elizabeth Zwicky)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 03:22:06 GMT

In article <4ZHViB1w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
>mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor) writes:
>> QUEERS HAVE KIDS.

>Poor kids. :(

>> And there's nothing you can do about it.  Neener neener.

>Sure there is. Plant a flower for each ...
>child ...

[ellipses mine]

While I don't much appreciate being called a poor child, I could go
for this flower planting business. I'd like an iris, I think; they're
beautiful, and if you think turkey basters are weird, you've never
considered propogation via corms. But perhaps I should choose
something more symbolic.  A cut-leaf peony might be nice, since it's
rare but exquisite, not unlike my family. It also looks pretty plain
unless it's blooming, capturing the ease with which we blend into
society. And it's another one that doesn't go for the boring
male-female seed routine. A trilium, with a single three-petaled
flower, captures the three parents, one kid aspect pretty well. But on
the whole, I think the best would be a rare and delicate orchid. Not
because I think my family is particularly delicate; the cut-leaf
peony's hardiness is actually better for symbolism. No, I want a rare
and delicate orchid because I figure if you plant one for all of us
kids of queers, you'll be too busy to post. That assumes you aren't
going to try to find us by looking for miserable kids in the company
of obvious queers, 'cause planting a flower for each of them will
leave you plenty of time.

(I am at a loss to express my conceptual family in the language of
flowers; perhaps I should stick to the cut-leaf peony and insert some
flamboyantly plastic peonies into it?)

	Elizabeth D. Zwicky
	zwicky@erg.sri.com

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17712 alt.society.civil-liberty:3362 alt.individualism:2382 misc.taxes:2204 alt.politics.elections:714
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,misc.taxes,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Employee vs. Employer rights (was Re: What keeps me from being Lib.)
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:42:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>The Libertarian Party's position on taxes is very attractive (e.g. I
>won't have to pay any). I find some of their other positions less
>attractive.

>One position with which some may disagree concerns employee vs.
>employer rights.

>Should it be legal or illegal for an employer to fire an employee because ...
>   the employee won't have sex with his or her boss?

See below.

>   the employee is African-American?
>   the employee is female?
>   the employee is Jewish?

If the employer was sexist or racist I don't think they'd be hired in
the first place.

>   the employee advocates a union?
>   the employee belongs to a union?

See below.

>   the employee smokes tobacco off the job 
>                      (and pays for his or her own insurance)?

Yes, but I don't see why.  Also see below.


>   the employee was put on a blacklist by another employer?
>   the employee is a registered Republican?
>   the employee writes a personal letter-to-the-editor 
>                      criticizing the President of the U.S.?


>If I understand the position of the LP (I'm sure someone will correct
>me if I'm wrong), because an employee and employer are free agents,
>none of these actions should be illegal. If an employee doesn't like
>an employer's work conditions, he or she is free to find work
>elsewhere.

This is below...  There is nothing whatsoever to prevent you and the
employer from placing reasonableness clauses in the employment
contract.  Assuming you are hired in the first place, the employer
wants you and you want the employer, clauses such as that you can't be
fired for what you do outside the company (as long as it isn't
criminal) are reasonable.  Or you can go the other way and only list
the things that you can be terminated for.

Unions might be a bit stickier.  There's nothing to prevent all of you
from organizing and bargaining together.  It's in the employer's
interest to keep the already trained and skilled employees.  You can
even bargain for ridiculous union laws and enforced union membership
for all new employees.


-- 
You forgot to do your backup 16 days ago.  Tomorrow you'll need that version.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 23:06:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.155437.29479@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.130714.12076@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>And marketing has nothing to do with it -- to get a big TV contract,
>>it has to be sold to a *national* audience, and over half of the
>>country has no interest in ever seeing a hockey game.  The first
>>three sports mentioned are all sports that that anybody can play
>>any time, but hockey requires ice, and there's a solid chunk of the
>>television market that sees icy weather maybe once every three years.
>
>I disagree strongly, Ted.  Marketing *does* have a lot to do with it.  I
>don't believe that it is a requirement that you live in an icy clime to
>have a successful hockey team.  The San Jose Sharks are in an area where
>ice is unheard of, and they sold every game this season.  

And now a franchise is being awarded to Tampa Bay.  I understand they
have the support down there as well.
>
>Sherri Nichols
>snichols@adobe.com


-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Go BLUE JAYS   1-0   at Tigers Monday (4-2), Wednesday and Thursday
 The Rangers jinx continues.  The year they could win, they strike.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc