HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 6 Nov 1992 14:49:59 CST
From: <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
 <19921106100208ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>

If you heard Buchanan on Crossfire before he became a political candidate
and a fascist (strange how politics can do this to people), you would
not be so hard on Murray Rothbard's endorsement of Buchanan.  If he
really endorsed Bush later on, I'm sure it was well qualified and
purely pragmatic (clinton is likely to be a disaster for our country).

BTW, the buchanan endorsement came far before the "culture warrior" stuff.
Only "No New Taxes" and "Regulation President" had been campaign themes at
that point.
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Wednesday, 11 Nov 1992 12:34:22 EST
From: Nicholas C. Hester <IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: GOOD NEWS IN PA!(Fwd:State gains two new official political partie
 <8eygdf_00WBOE4VXwE@andrew.cmu.edu> <2695@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>
 <1992Nov11.064712.23318@dsd.es.com>

In article <1992Nov11.064712.23318@dsd.es.com>, rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich
Thomson) says:
>
>pro-abortion.  Their personal opinion on the matter should not be at
>issue.  What is at issue is _who decides_?  Is it Big Daddy Government
>that makes your moral choice, or do you grab your own life by the
>balls and make the decision for yourself.

Oh, no.  Here we go again! :)

___

  Nicholas  Hester                  "I'm a virgin...I'm just not good at it."
ia80024@Maine.bitnet                                 -Ramada, "Hot Shots!"
ia80024@Maine.maine.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1702 alt.politics.marrou:2159
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: This Stupid "LaRouche is a Lib" Thing
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:05:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov6.200613.2793@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes...
> 
>     As I was trying to persuade people to vote Libertarian in this past 
>election, I had as many people as not ask me "Isn't Lyndon LaRouche a 
>Libertarian?" This is a *very* widespread belief.
>     Here are my questions:
>     (1) Has LaRouche ever been a Libertarian? If so, when and what did he do?

	Never, never, ever, ever -- has Lyndon LaRouche been a Libertarian.
Not as a candidate, nor as a member, nor even as a believer in free markets
or individual rights (in the libertarian sense).  There is no relation.

	He was a member of the (Socialist) Labor Party and afterwards ran
as a Democrat or Independant for the Presidency of the United States.

	His politics is anti-free market and anti-freedom in general.
He wants to restore "the philosophy of government", by which he means
an unlimited government that can do just about anything.  Very unlibertarian.

	So, where did this misconception come about?  It's hard to say.
Earlier this year, Time magazine made the mistake of refering to Lyndon
LaRouche as a "libertarian".  Another TV show or magazine picked up on that
and refered to LaRouche of all things as the Libertarian Party's
presidential candidate!  I believe that both Time and that other news
source gave retractions and admitted their error, but most people did
not pick up on it.  It hurt the LP quite a bit, and there is not much
that can be done about it.


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Keywords: Objectivism Libertarianism
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 10:26:30 GMT

In article <Bx438z.3u9@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
}Sure.  Here's the bottom line.  According to libertarianism, why is liberty
}good?  What does it mean to be good?  They simply have no consistent answer.
}There are lots of people who answer that liberty is a gift from God.  For
}others, it's a subjective choice unrelated to reality.  For others it is
}emotion, or tradition, or hedonism.  The bottom line is that there is no
}rational justification given.  It is just an out of context conclusion, not
}a rational conclusion based on the facts of reality.
}
}Saying "I feel liberty is right" carries no more weight than saying "I feel 
}liberty is wrong".

Granting that this sort of relativist foundation for liberty is faulty, you
give the impression that there are no libertarians who base their position on
objective grounds, which is false.  The Libertarian Party was founded by
Objectivists, some of whom think that anarchism is the logical conclusion to
draw from Objectivist premises.  Objectivist Libertarians are its lifeblood.

}Nonsense!  There is something of a requirement that one NOT be a libertarian,
}but there is no link to the Republicans.

Not being a Libertarian is only a requirement of not getting on the shit list
of a bunch of second-handers like Leonard Peikoff.  As for the Republicans,
Rand endorsed Goldwater, Nixon, and Peikoff endorsed Bush.  Sanctioning evil?

}Actually, I was in that crowd and what he said was that he expected that most
}of the audience voted for Republicans most of the time (or something to that
}effect).  That is not anything like a "political requirement".  He just
}mentioned it in one speech (in which, by the way, he recommended we vote for
}Clinton...but for reasons to lengthy to go into here).

Voting for evil is still sanctioning evil, contrary to Objectivist principles.

}Indeed it would be if we did, which we don't.  Voting for a republican
}is not the same thing as "getting into bed" with them.  Besides, as I
}said, Peikoff this year recommended that we vote for Clinton (though not 
}he likes anything aobut Clinton).  Personally, I don't plan to take his
}advice, and I know a lot of objectivists who can't bring themselves to
}vote for Clinton either.  For what it is worth, I'll probably vote for
}Perot or John Galt as a substitute for "none of the above".

It's still evil.  Peikoff's endorsement of Clinton just goes to show that he
ain't principled like he claims to be.


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.society.anarchy
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: the most equitable economic system
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1992Nov2.221513.3850@bradley.bradley.educ <1d4ng1INN5n3@uwm.edu>
	<1992Nov4.165629.49831@ccvax.ucd.ie> <10283@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:55:18 GMT


   while others do not develop.  I have my own theories, I want to hear yours.

   |>3.  Capitalism (of the market variety) has been unable to develop
   |>the Eastern European economies.  They were crap under state capitalism
   |>they are closing down under market capitalism.  Even Germany, one of
   |>the most vibrant capitalist economies has failed so far to develop
   |>Eastern Germany to any significant extent.

state capitalism, hmmmmmmm

how long do you think it takes to switch to a free-market economy?

   |>5.  Capitalism still cause wars that result in the slaughter
   |>of millions of working people.  Iraq was just one example of this
   |>, there are countless others.

huh, I'm about to decide that his post was a joke. If it was, good
one, you got me.  What about Nazi Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. before
WW II?


--


Matt Landrum                    | mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "There's a fine line between 
Starkville, MS  39759           |  stupid and clever" -- Spinal Tap


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 12:38:55 GMT

In article <BxC4Mp.K3D@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
}In article <1992Nov3.200153.29333@b30.ingr.com> craig@jido.b30.ingr.com writes:
}>In article <Bx44pE.44I@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
}
}>   You need to discuss this with a real marxist.  You will find that
}>   marxists view themselves as agents of liberation, and that's why you
}>   find them in the LP.
}
}>Please name one, or retract this. Absent evidence, it's arrant
}>nonsense. Very bad form for someone who claims to apply Reason to all
}>aspects of life.
}
}On the contrary, where do you think that the term "anarcho-communist" came 
}from?  Do you think there are none?  Do you think that marxists view themselves
}as agents of oppression?  Of course not, they run around proclaiming that they
}are for the liberation of the proletariat.
}
}I have personally talked to at least a dozen of this kind of guy, and I
}have spent a lot of time reading marxist writings and listening to the local
}radical radio station (KPFK).  As you might imagine, I have not maintained 
}close personal relationships with any of those people, but I assure you I have
}met and argued with them.  I know they exist.  If I told you that John Smith
}was an anarcho-communist would believe me then?

You're being obtuse.  Our challenge to you is to name one single solitary
anarchist who doesn't believe in private property rights who is a member of
the LP, as you claim.  Complete with name, phone number, and address, so that
we can verify your claim.


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
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:24:56 GMT

In article Dw8@beach.csulb.edu, sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>Sorry, one just has to accept civic responsibility over
>personal preference and self-interest on some things.

Why?

thx
gak

---
I guess there's some things          |      Seems like the more I think I know
I'm not meant to understand          |                 The more I find I don't
Ain't life a riot? Ain't love grand? | Every answer opens up so many questions
Richard Stueven                 gak@wrs.com            ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Subject: Re: Question: drug non-control
Keywords: drug control
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: us
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:45:45 GMT

In article <3bj1zqd@rpi.edu> ash@acm.rpi.edu (Arthur Hyun) writes:
>I have a question about the Libertarian position on drug laws.
>
>I understand the rationalle behind abolition of most control laws, and
>by my understanding, it would seem that the abolition of drug laws would
>make drugs cheaper and of higher quality.  Wouldn't this encourage more
>people to experiment with narcotics and therefore become addicted?
>
>This might not, of course, be precisely a problem, given that drugs could
>be of higher quality and better availability, sort of like caffeine, I
>suppose.  But I'm curious what the party line has to say about it, though.

I am not a member of the party, but let me take a stab at this one.

The "drug problem" is not a problem with drug use, but the "war on drugs"(tm).
The WOD is a profit making endeavor for the government. At least from what I
have read, the government collects more in RICO seizures than it spends in
inforcement etc.

The worst problems with the "drug problem" is the crimminal activities dealing
with the supply end(gang wars, government corruption etc) not OD's &
addictions(IMHO).

If Drugs were legal, yes there would be an increase in the number of users(but
drug education, like alcohol education, should help here), but the lack of a
"black market" need for the drug, would reduce the profitability of the illegal
drug trade. Drug companies& the government(not gangs) would control the drug 
trade, and their battles for control would be fought by lawyers in the courts, 
not by criminals in the streets.
-- 
If the price that I must pay to obtain my *  Robert E. Day/Syr Otto von    *
freedom, is to acknowledge that the Gov-  *  Schwartzkatz, Shire Mugmort   *
ernmet was granted the power to infringe  *  Barony Middle Marches,        *
on them, then I am not free. Paul Anderson*  Middle Kingdom                *
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1604 alt.society.anarchy:661
From: rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Subject: Re: Kavorkian's Nat'l Press Club talk
Reply-To: rthomson@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson)
Organization: Design Systems Division, Evans & Sutherland, SLC, UT
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 07:57:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov1.101243.44296@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
	miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Of course, strictly speaking, reason alone as a guide for science might
>justify "rational" moves most of us would not want to accept: eugenics,
>types of experimentation with human subjects presently disallowed,
>discussions of race and intelligence, alternatives to imprisionment
>for lawbreakers, etc. 

I saw a very interesting solution to prevent such mishaps.  The
particular case in question was experimentation with an apparatus
designed to keep a severed head alive.

The article was written from the perspective of someone who had
well-researched the problem and found that although some
experimentation had been done, no significant experiments with
discorporated (i.e. severed) human heads had yet been performed.
However, it was the author's opinion that the technology is present
and the situation is ripe for someone to attempt such an experiment.

In order to prevent unethical experimentation in this area, the author
_patented_ the device used to keep the discorporated head alive.  This
strikes me as an interesting approach to the problem (although I know
some Libertarians have a problem with the idea of patents in the first
place).  If you patent the device, then you can prevent people from
doing unethical research since it would violate your patent.

The article was in Whole Earth Review (a publication I can't recommend
enough) a couple of years ago.  I can dig up a reference if needed.

						-- Rich
-- 
	Repeal the personal income tax; vote Libertarian in 1992.
Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted; Copyright 1992 Rich Thomson
UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson			Rich Thomson
Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com	IRC: _Rich_		PEXt Programmer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Constitutional Question
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 19:25:03 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

Alt.politics.libertarian probably isn't the appropriate newsgroup for
this question, but I am posting it here because I have faith in the
large number of Constitutional scholars here.

What happens now if Clinton is shot?

I did some figuring, and here's what I *think* would happen. The "real"
election hasn't taken place yet, but the electors are unequivocally
committed to voting for Clinton and Gore, and in most states it is a
felony for an elector to defect. So when the election happened, Clinton
would win the Presidency, and Gore the Vice Presidency. However, Clinton
would then be ruled ineligible, because he wouldn't be a citizen of the
U.S. (dead people aren't citizens). At that point, no eligible candidate
would have a majority of the electoral votes for President, so it would
descend upon the House of Representatives to choose the President, picking
from the top two finishers. Because only one other candidate got any
electoral votes at all, they would be forced to select Bush for president.
Gore's election to the Vice Presidency (defeating the incumbent Quayle)
would still be valid. To recap, Bush would be President, Gore Vice President.

Is this right?

-- 
__/\__  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
  \/    Marrou/Lord in '92!      | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 07:25:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.200153.29333@b30.ingr.com> craig@jido.b30.ingr.com writes:
>In article <Bx44pE.44I@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>   You need to discuss this with a real marxist.  You will find that
>   marxists view themselves as agents of liberation, and that's why you
>   find them in the LP.

>Please name one, or retract this. Absent evidence, it's arrant
>nonsense. Very bad form for someone who claims to apply Reason to all
>aspects of life.

On the contrary, where do you think that the term "anarcho-communist" came 
from?  Do you think there are none?  Do you think that marxists view themselves
as agents of oppression?  Of course not, they run around proclaiming that they
are for the liberation of the proletariat.

I have personally talked to at least a dozen of this kind of guy, and I
have spent a lot of time reading marxist writings and listening to the local
radical radio station (KPFK).  As you might imagine, I have not maintained 
close personal relationships with any of those people, but I assure you I have
met and argued with them.  I know they exist.  If I told you that John Smith
was an anarcho-communist would believe me then?

--Brian
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Keywords: Objectivism Libertarianism
Date: 2 Nov 92 04:39:41 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

>If you read some of the recent works by the O's, you will see them denouncing
>L's, both specifically (like Murray Rothbard) and in general.  These people
>seem to follow Rand religiously.  I (and I think other L's) prefer to take
>Nathanial Brandon's tact that there is some stuff good in her philisophy and
>some stuff bad.
>
>Anyone else?

I've read a pamphlet by Peter Schwartz called "Libertarianism: The Perversion
of Liberty." He has some good points with regards to unilateral disarmament,
the Libertarian legal system, some Libs' support of NAMBLA, and the fact
that the party contains so many self-contradictory viewpoints (anarchists,
non-anarchists, etx.) They say that Libertarianism has degenerated into
irrationality. Well, I don't personally know many Libertarians, but the
one I do know was kind of suprised about the pamphlet. I wonder if some
of the pamphlet' views weren't taken out of context, but again, Schwartz had 
some good points. I urge Libertarians to check it out. It's avaiable from
Second Renaissance Books.

As far as Objectivism goes, I agree with some of it. The biggest problem
I have is that Objectivism, supposedly a philosophy based on individualism,
seems to require that its followers stamp out their own individuality and
agree with everything Rand ever said. Hmmm, I don't think so. IMHO, 
Objectivism's best points are as follows:

1) People's underlying philosophies are extremely important in determining
   their actions.

2) Objectivist epistomology.

3) Objectivity in politics and law.

4) Emphasis on reason and egoism.

5) Defense of capitalism.

One other problem I have with Objectivists is that they treat rationality
as an absolute--either you think or you don't. I think it's more a
question of degree--how much thought one put's into an idea or action.
In other words, rationality and irrationality should be thought of
as long-sighted and short-sighted. Also, they seem to think that free will
is cognitive self-regulation--i.e. you either choose to focus on something
or not. If you are not forcing yourself to think about or do somthing, you
are not thinking and you're not focused on anything. Once again, I don't think
so. If I'm not forcing myself to think about one thing, it merely means I'm
thinking about something else--not that I'm not thinking about anything at all.
The only time I can't focus on anything is when I'm dead tired.

Anyone else?

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb)
Subject: Impeachment
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:38:48 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

There seems to be some confusion over what the term "impeachment" means.  In
fact, a person is impeached when the House votes charges of impeachment. 
However, the Senate may convict or acquit.  Thus, Andrew Johnson was impeached,
but since he was acquitted, he remained in office.  In other words, impeachment
is the counterpart not of conviction, but of indictment.


Andy Lipscomb
lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Bitnet: lipscoja@vuctrvax)
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: dumb libertarians
Date: Thu,  5 Nov 92 09:06:56 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <1992Nov3.194349.7546@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

  sap@putz.com (Spike Pubin) writes:

>...I CANT BELIEVE ONLY ONE PERSON
>CAN SPEEK THE TRUTH AND IS RIGHT AND THE REST ALL SAY HE IS WRONG
>BECAUSE HE IS RIGHT BUT THEY WANT TO DECIEVE ALL THE PEOPLE INTO
>BEING LIBRARIANS SO THEY CAN KEEP THEY'RE STUFF AND NOT HAVE TOO
>HELP ANYONE BECAUSE THEY'RE SELFISH...

I don't think you're being fair here.  I have always found librarians
to be very helpful and polite.


    Alan T. Furman         | Don't blame me -- I voted Libertarian
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information