HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 23:34:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.171827.24115@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
|> 
|> the US changed the amount at least twice during the gold standard, although
|> one of the changes was quite minor, the other was not -- the standard was
|> originally $20 per ounce, not $35. so there is precedent for this concern.
|> 
Mr Kozierok is correct.  The $20 gold piece was just under one troy ounce
of gold.  Up until 1933 (4?),  it was legal for US Citizens to own them. 
When President Roosevelt took us off the gold standeard,  the $ was simul-
taneously devalued to $35 the troy ounce,  but as far as US citizens were
concerned,  it was no longer backed by gold;  only foreign creditors could
redeem $ for gold (maybe only foreign central banks,  I forget the details).

Sometime during the late Johnson or Early Nixon administration,  the "gold
dollar" was devalued again to roughly $43 the troy ounce.  Then,  in 1971
Nixon closed the gold window entirely.  Since then,  the $ has been a 100%
fiat currency (as are all other major world currencies).  Ownership of gold
by US citizens was re-legalized,  I believe,  in 1974.

The $ was also a fiat currency from sometime during the Civil War to 1873,
when the gold (but not the silver) standard was restored by legislation ("The Crime of 1873").

The currency regime that has existed roughly since 1971 is unprecedented in
the history of Civilization.  Except for a time in China,  there has always
been at least one major currency backed by some tangible commodity.

========== 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: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand(What yo gonna do?) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:19:05 +0000

In article <MERRITT.92Dec14152433@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu writes:

>Some have suggested that we should not worry about the high-bred
>collectivist capitalist of Europe and Asia. The argument is that
>if they are willing to sunsidize us what's the problem?

Boy, I'm glad that I don't regard Britain as part of Europe <g>...

>The wars of the 21st century are Economic in nature.
                              ^^^
We're not in the 21st Century yet - the wars *may* be, in your opinion
(and, OK, lots of other people's as well), Economic in nature...

>There will be winners and losers.

That tends to be the nature of wars...

>High-bred Collectivst Capitalist are far more
>formidable opponents than Communist in these NEW type of wars.
>They will not dry-up and blow away or cave in from their own
>inefficiences, because being high-breds they have the freedom to
>tweek their policies to engage our counter tactics.

Can you define this term 'high-bred'?  I haven't seen it before.  I
thought originally you were referring to the old 'Nobility', but now I'm
not sure...

>I do have strong convictions. One is that I want to live in
>a technologically advanced country where true freedom exist.

You & me both.  Trouble is I can't see one anywhere.

>%     Stick by them.
>Of course.

Seconded.

>%     Let others do the same.
>goes without saying.

But let's say it anyway, because too many people conveniently forget it.

Chris

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Might be a FAQ
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 20:41:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.235101.25162@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Stefan.M.Gorsch@dartmouth.edu (Stefan M. Gorsch) writes:
>Essentially, then, the libertarian position seems to be caveat emptor.
>While this may have been reasonable in the good ol' days of snake oil
>and "patent medicine" it is clearly (to me, at least) inappropriate to
>the current epoch. Today both entrepeneurs and mass marketers are far
>too adept at manipulating the media to create consumer demand for a
>variety of useless (or worse) products. In the case of medicine, the
>average consumer (even the sophisticated consumer) clearly does not
>have the resources to evaluate the safety and efficacy of
>pharmaceutical health claims.

This is certainly true.  Is it possible, however, that, in a
Libertarian society, private evaluation companies would come into
existence?  Average consumers could pick and choose among such
evaluators, and base their judgements on their evaluator's reports.
I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts about (1) whether this
would actually happen or not, and (2) what problems might still exist
if it did happen.
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:09:24 GMT

In article <1h79gvINN3of@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>If you think politicians can't "get comfortable" in less than 8 or 12 years,
>why should we take anything else you say seriously?

Well at least one member of congress said just that.  Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
was quoted as saying it takes that long to learn your way around congress.
She was reelected anyway (she outspent her opponents by 10-1).

                                     James Parker
                                     jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Subject: Re: Feminism  (Was: Re:  Question: Foreign Policy Issues
Organization: Mary Ellen Carter Salvage Crew
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:41:32 GMT
	<1992Dec16.195702.6333@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<77761@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>

In article <77761@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
   In <1992Dec16.195702.6333@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) 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?

   Makes the dances a little awkward for one thing. ;*)

Depends on your taste, I suppose :-)   Besides, some of us are folk dancers
or Deadheads, and don't always dance in couples....

More to the point, look how women get treated at Libertarian meetings;
my wife got involved with the LP before I did, and was less than
pleased the first time she went to a statewide LP meeting, nearly all male,
and somebody asked her whose wife she was ....  There are still some
attitudes that need changing, and a lot of nerds who think that
because they're not socialists they aren't in need of some socialization :-)
--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# !egassem terces eht dnuof ev'uoY  !snoitalutargnoC
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Views? :
Date: 28 Dec 92 07:02:21 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Dec28.060837.3991@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.045547.4572@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.123301.14776@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>>	Stop with silly tanker stuff.
>>
>>only if you tell me how, after my broker stops answering his phone, and
>>after i decide i want to leave the country because of the riots, and
>>after the US dollar devalues by 90%, i am supposed to take my savings
>>out of the country *without* a tanker.
>>
>>--
>>charles
>
>	You can't. 

fine. then oil as backing currency is dead.

>But there is no reason for the United States to persue
>economic policies which benefit tratorious people who leave the country
>during bad times.

i can't believe you would hit me out of left field with such a foolish
statement. that is the language of enslavement, the kind of thing i would
expect the government to say just before it starts repealing my "inalienable
rights". you are speaking like an altruist, expecting me to not only
suffer the destruction of my country by the incompetent and the evil,
but to go down with the ship, saluting proudly as the waters rise over
my head. you should be ashamed of yourself.

and not only that -- your statement is, once again, totally irrelevant.
the point about portability is just an example -- the concept is being
able to get your hands on the commodity, whether to leave the country or not.

your credibility is shrinking faster than the value of the dollar.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Private product evaluation agencies (was: Might be a FAQ)
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:26:22 GMT

In article <Bzxt5t.B38@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chr
is Holt) writes:
>ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland) writes:
>>The thread started out talking (among other things) about
>>things like drugs and medical treatments.  Can anyone think of any
>>problems that would occur if evaluation of medical treatments were
>>handled by such private companies?
>
>Time delays, difficulty in gathering information, and cost, to start
>with.  How many people really want to fork out large amounts of money
>to be told that a drug they took 5 years ago wasn't safe?

This isn't what I meant.  The idea is that you'd consult evaluation
companies BEFORE taking a new kind of treatment, not after.  Those who
don't want to wait can take the treatment without evaluation.  THose
who want an evaluation can pick some company they trust and wait for
the evaluation.  This would be no different than waiting for
evaluations under the current system, except you wouldn't be forced to,
and you could choose the evaluator you liked.  This is how I inagine it
anyway.  Any reason why it wouldn't work this way?

>Why should
>the drug companies themselves pay up, when they'd be better off if
>nobody gathered enough statistics to sue them effectively?

I don't understand this comment.  In the scenario I'm imagining,
medical treatments would be evaluated by INDEPENDENT companies, like
Consumer Reports, which are funded by the people that make use of the
evaluations, not those who sell the treatments being evaluated.  Of
course, the companies that create new treatments could try to withhold
information on those treatments.  The worst result of this would
presumably be inconclusive evaluations by independent companies,
leading to their subscribers not using the treatment.

>Just to diverge onto one of my bugbears a bit, the same problems
>apply to evaluating education...

Would anyone who wants to jump on this subject please change the
subject line?
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur
From: howard@titan.hal.com (Howard Gayle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Views? :
Summary: Public choice theory.
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:18:23 GMT
Reply-To: howard@hal.com (Howard Gayle)
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc., Campbell, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.hal.com
In-reply-to: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)

In article <1992Dec28.105734.15926@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
> I'm merely assuming that the govt. will act in its own
>self interest.

Governments don't have interests; individual politicians and
bureaucrats do (and their interests may sometimes coincide).
It's a mistake to treat "the government" like an individual.
--
Howard Gayle
HAL Computer Systems, Inc.
1315 Dell Avenue
Campbell, California 95008
USA
howard@hal.com
Phone: +1 408 379 7000 extension 1080
FAX  : +1 408 379 5022
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:02:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Dec21.171201.25449@bradley.bradley.edu> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:

|dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:

|>According to starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr):
|>{ Lectures me on the fine distinctions between a democracy and a constitutional
|>  republic, and warns me of the dangers of the dictatorship of the majority. }
|>
|>Yes, yes, I know.  But the answer to this (in fact the only answer yet found
|>to be the slightest bit workable) is to put consitutional restrictions on the
|>power of the government in such a way that no matter who is in office, they
|>cannot constitutionally infringe on protected liberties.
|>Putting some sort of restrictions on _who_ can hold office based on theories
|>on incumbent ideology vs. newcomer ideology is just dumb.  Restrict _what_
|>they can do, not _who_ can do it!
|>Again, term-limits might seem like a nifty idea for any number of reasons, but
|>what it is _not_ is a libertarian proposal.  It is another governmental
|>infringement on the ability of people to choose their representatives.

|Ya know, I've been thinking about this for some time now, and I think I
|agree with him.  If we place adequate restrictions on government, then
|there should be no need for term limits.

I also agree with you.  But then again the founding fathers thought that they
had adequate safeguards built in as well.  And we all know how well those
have worked.

I have near infinite confidence in the ability of politicians to find a
way around any restrictions placed in their path, especially if the have
a compliant court to back them up.

That is why I have concluded that the best solution is to give each and
everyone of them the boot before they have a chance to get to comfortable.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 17:12:01 GMT

dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:

>According to starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr):
>{ Lectures me on the fine distinctions between a democracy and a constitutional
>  republic, and warns me of the dangers of the dictatorship of the majority. }
>
>Yes, yes, I know.  But the answer to this (in fact the only answer yet found
>to be the slightest bit workable) is to put consitutional restrictions on the
>power of the government in such a way that no matter who is in office, they
>cannot constitutionally infringe on protected liberties.
>Putting some sort of restrictions on _who_ can hold office based on theories
>on incumbent ideology vs. newcomer ideology is just dumb.  Restrict _what_
>they can do, not _who_ can do it!
>Again, term-limits might seem like a nifty idea for any number of reasons, but
>what it is _not_ is a libertarian proposal.  It is another governmental
>infringement on the ability of people to choose their representatives.

Ya know, I've been thinking about this for some time now, and I think I
agree with him.  If we place adequate restrictions on government, then
there should be no need for term limits.
-- 
*davE*   Making the world safe for intelligent dance music.  dave@bradley.edu.
########## David L. Vessell -- Bradley University Computing Services #########
Your shame is neverending. Just one psychological drama after another.-Erasure
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Date: 22 Dec 1992 23:56:35 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec21.222526.8441@bradley.bradley.edu>, dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:

> We don't need term limitations, we need ballot access reform.  We need
> congressional controls.  We need encumbent privelege removed.

"I don't need an incision in my belly, I just need this appendix gone."
-- 

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...
From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Japan VS. USA
Date: 21 Dec 1992 23:46:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Jeffrey Bolden:

You make two incorrect observations. One, Japan will be the 
dominant economy. With an incredibly bad living standard, I don't
see how the economy can thrive for too long. Two, USA has control
over the world. Gee, wouldn't we have ended communism in Russia
40 or 50 years ago? Let's become globocop.   
Even though the U.S. may have the world's most powerful army, that
doesn't mean it can conquer the world. I personally don't believe
at this moment we have any say in any conflict around the world
unless we get directly involved. Getting directly involved is
extremely costly and next to impossible to always be successful
in. At the present time, any military cutbacks will not effect
the present socio-econo-political situation.

Virtually,
    
Edmund J. Ryan
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Date: 21 Dec 1992 18:43:09 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Dec19.102325.12203@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>First of all, most Congressmen aren't Jews or women, so limiting their terms
>of office would tend to make it more possible for these groups to break into
>the legislative cartel.

Let me get this straight.  You are in favor of a law that limits the rights
of citizens to choose to elect the representative they want as often and
for as long as they want?  Yet you wouldn't want a law that limited choice
in any other commodity?

>The main effect I see is merely to break the cartel, which is a good in
>itself.

How does this break some cartel when all it would do is increase the rate
of turnover in the same positions?

Mike Huben

"One cannot play chess if one becomes aware of the pieces as living souls
and of the fact that the Whites and the Blacks have more in common with
each other than with the players.  Suddenly one loses all interest in who will
be champion."  Anatol Rapoport in "Strategy and Conscience" 1964.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross)
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 19:36:28 GMT
Organization: Mousebat, Follicle, Goosecreature, Ampersand, Spong, Wapcaplet,                 Looseliver, Vendetta & Pang
Distribution: usa

According to starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr):
{ Lectures me on the fine distinctions between a democracy and a constitutional
  republic, and warns me of the dangers of the dictatorship of the majority. }

Yes, yes, I know.  But the answer to this (in fact the only answer yet found
to be the slightest bit workable) is to put consitutional restrictions on the
power of the government in such a way that no matter who is in office, they
cannot constitutionally infringe on protected liberties.

Putting some sort of restrictions on _who_ can hold office based on theories
on incumbent ideology vs. newcomer ideology is just dumb.  Restrict _what_
they can do, not _who_ can do it!

Again, term-limits might seem like a nifty idea for any number of reasons, but
what it is _not_ is a libertarian proposal.  It is another governmental
infringement on the ability of people to choose their representatives.
-- 
******************* INTERNET: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU **********************
"I proceed to reveal," the Colonel said.  "Listen carefully daughter.  This is
 the Supreme Secret.  Listen.  `Love is love and fun is fun.  But it is always
 so quiet when the gold fish die.'"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Buying Au
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:30:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.023835.20587@klic.rain.com> keithl@klic.rain.com (Keith Lofstrom) writes:
>Many of these coins have a "face value" - the Maple Leaf says "$50" on it,
>when the current market price is more like $350.  But hey, they are the
>government, they don't HAVE to tell the truth.  I can see them calling them
>all back in at face value, someday.  I can also see many people saying
>sheepishly "Coins?  What coins?  I used to have some, but I lost them ..."
>If you think having the gold in some other form will protect you from
>expropriation, I have a dandy bridge in NYC for sale, too.

actually, there is precedent to suggest that you may not be correct about
this. i have a book which says that in the 1934 recall of gold (how many
people now don't even know about this? i just found out about it myself --
pretty scary), numismatic or collectible coins were exempt from the recall.
if they were to do this again, they would probably exempt coins based
on a minimum premium over melt; say if the premium was over X%, the coin
would be considered collectible. this is a reason to consider semi-numismatic
coins such as the Saint-Gaudens from the early 1900's.

btw, if they did a recall, i doubt they would recall at face value --
because their goal would be to actually get the gold out of the system,
which would never happen if they tried a rip-off of *that* magnitude.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian