HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 15:28:15 GMT


In article <parvin1.718685939@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu writes:


> No, you're not getting the main idea here.  What he and I showed was that
> such a "high-profit" situation is indeed an equilibrium.

No, he did not.  Here's the graph.


10 +
   |\
 8 + \
   |  \
 6 +---A
   |   |\
 4 +   | \
   |   |  \
 2 +---|---B-- cost of manufacture
   |   |   |\
 0 +-+-+-+-+-+
   0 2 4 6 8 10

What his example showed is that if 'A' is your initial condition, and you
compare it with 'B,' then it is obvious that as far as consumers are
concerned, B is better.  The implication is that since there are no
profits to be made at B, that the market will never do it and therefore
government is justified in doing it.

What this presentation (as well as you) ignore, and what I've been trying
to say all along, is that there *is* profit to be made anywhere between A
and B.  So although no one is going to start a company at B, they will
start it between A and B and the subsequent competition for market-share
after that will bring the price as close to B as market uncertainties
will allow.

'A' is *not* an equilibrium!  Even with contrived examples given 'ideal'
conditions and a benevolent government, intervention is not justified.

Assuming you get this point, then the other points that Desai and I
have been making might start making sense.

thant









  That is, if it
> exists, no traditional market forces are going to change it. How is this
> an "arbitrary position"?  It is a market equilibrium.
> And it showed that a subsidy CAN be more than cost effective in its total
> benefits to society. 
> So I can't see what you mean by "arbitrary".  For some products, there is
> likely to be one initial producer.  And if start-up costs are significant,
> the scenario I outlined could easily appear.  And since it's an equilibrium,
> it's not a passing phase.  There may
> be several equilibria, but this is certainly as worthy as any other.
> 
> Now, I want to leave Desai out of this since he presented it as a "silly"
> example, setting it up for some pointed real-world questions.  So I'm
> sure his little illustration of my example is not meant to support my
> conclusions.  There are problems inherent in my scheme which he pointed
> out, although I don't consider them to be fatal.  (Utopia
> is not an option *grin*).  Mostly, he questioned the ability of the
> government to project demand, the possibility of collusion, and the inability
> of government to divorce itself from special interests. These are all worthy
> topics of discussion, which I'll address when I have the time to write
> something good.  I'm not going to make them disappear, but argue that
> potential benefits exceed these potential pitfalls.
> -- 
> ===========================================================================
> Douglas Parvin
> parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: cable tv
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:00:20 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Originator: lando@tango


Tom Hyatt writes: 
<I thought I'd mention a couple of instances where alternatives simply won't do.
<I live in an apartment complex, being single, and not needing the cost and
<space of a house at this time, do not have the option of either (a) "wireless"
<cable when it comes out or (b) satellite TV.  If I had my way, I would have
<a satellite system hooked up tomorrow, but it just won't happen.  I find the
<limitations of broadcast TV too stringent, and am willing to pay what I
<consider a decent price for cable subscription. However, $57/month for basic
<plus a movie channel seems a bit high for me, especially for a system that is
<replete with transmission quality problems (my rabbit ears pick up channels
<better on some stations) as well as periodic outages for no apparent reason.
<I've seen what our cable company is charged by the different companies per
<month to  carry the signal,  and the markup is in the range of 800% for
<standard channels up to 1400% for subscription TV (HBO, etc).  These are
<fair prices?  I personally supported the bill, even with the one item I

Furniture and jewelry are marked up similarly.  Are we to have our government
move in and regulate the cost of these items too?  What about T-shirts?  How
much do they really cost $2-$3???  Get a t-shirt with San Francisco written on
it and the price is $15!

<per month to customers, which ticked off the Sportschannel people royally), are
<much worse. Cable TV is one of the most profitable ventures in the country
<right now, and the established systems simply don't want to have to fight for
<market share.

Since when it is wrong to make a profit?  That is why people go into business,
to make a profit.   I can applaud the Sportschannel for moving their services
into a more cost-effective channel, but this is not a good reason for the
government to get in and regulate yet another industry.


-- 
"Read my lips, 'No more statism.'"  - George Bush, NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: Re: Sponsor of first debat - Annheuser Busch
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:00:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.225642.29518@cas.org> gag65@cas.org () writes:
>One of our Libertarian Party activists here in Ohio just confirmed that the
>corporate sponsor for the first presidential debate in Missouri is Annheuser-
>Busch.
>
>For those who suggested a possible boycott of the corporate sponsor of the
>debates, here's a place to start.
>
>I'm not sure of any of their corporate phone numbers, etc, just wanted to pass
>this along ASAP.
>
>--Gary

  Yes and no.  August Busch, the chairman of Anheuseur-Busch is the sponsor
of the debate, not Anheuseur-Busch, Inc.  

  And, before you go off flaming him or the company, please remember one thing.
He is sponsoring the debate only to help St. Louis.  Without him, the debate
would have been held (sans Andre Marrou) in some other city.  He was not 
involved with the decisions on who to invite, etc.

  If you want to go overboard and boycott A-B products, why not boycott 
Washington Univ. as well, since we have as much to do (ie. NOTHING !) as 
A-B did in preventing, or allowing Marrou to speak on Sunday.

Greg

-- 
*******************************************************************************
Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman)
Subject: NRA has an excuse for excluding libertarians
Organization: Photon Research Associates, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:11:44 GMT


I picked up a copy of the NRA's political preference chart, which gives
letter grades to candidates.

Although the Libertarians were not included, nor were any endorsed, the
piece did note on the front page "NRA members should be aware that
Libertarian candidates as a rule are pro-gun".

Such positive recognition is a start.  (BTW, local NRA organizations
have endorsed libertarians in some races.)

Joe Naiman

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: amc1@cec2.wustl.edu (Adam M. Costello)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Inconsistency (Was: Re: Please let Marrou debate! -- and CNN's Crossfire)
Keywords: right life
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:03:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.021317.23578@telesciences.com> msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio) writes:
>
> My point is that you may as well not have any rights unless you have
> the right to life, except maybe the right to a decent burial.  Accept
> this fact; it will set you free, I think.
>
> By the way, do L/libertarians really believe this, or are you just
> speaking for yourself?

I am too new to L/libertarianism to say whether I am an adherent, but I
agree that no one has a right to life simply because everyone must die.

I disagree that without a right to life I may as well not have any
rights.  On the contrary, without the right to autonomy I may as well
not have any life.

Note, by the way, that people who leave wills excercise their right to
autonomy even after they have lost their lives.

AMC
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:51:01 GMT

From article <1992Oct5.140816.17199@iplmail.orl.mmc.com>, by steveg@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Steve Gabrilowitz):
> 
> You have pretty much echoed the general consensus of those responding to my
> question, but you have added one interesting little monkey wrench into the
> machinery: I do not feel that the major candidates are of equal value, not in the
> slightest.  Were it not such a close contest between the two candidates that
> have a chance, it would be much easier to decide to vote for the long term future
> instead of the short term.


Unless it (the vote) is close in *your* state, your vote will NOT affect
the outcome of the presidential election.

The electoral votes are awarded in a winner-take-all fashion in each state.

Besides that, Clinton is going to win.  David Rockefeller said so.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is often stated (and certainly true) that the poor have no right
to the wealth of the rich.  It is seldom stated (but equally true)
that the rich have no right to the wealth of the poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:40:57 GMT

In article <1aqdm3INNi2@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>I'm not worried.  Petulent "I don't wanna pay my taxes, and any way it's all
>waste" libertarians haven't the capacity for deferred gratification that is
>required to accomplish long-term objectives.  They're a group that's united
>only by their dislikes and dissent: that's never going to accumulate much
>following.
>
>Mike Huben

	This is why people must choose rational
philosophy--Objectivism--before they endorse a
political platform.

-- 
Peter Johnson	       "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience	
Independent Studies     cannot blindly follow orders." --Capt. Jean-Luc
University of Waterloo  Picard (Patrick Stewart) to Adm. Haftel, STAR TREK:
	   		THE NEXT GENERATION, "The Offspring"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:754 alt.politics.marrou:1529
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:17:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BvvDCB.G9H@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson) writes...
>In article <1aqdm3INNi2@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>I'm not worried.  Petulent "I don't wanna pay my taxes, and any way it's all
>>waste" libertarians haven't the capacity for deferred gratification that is
>>required to accomplish long-term objectives.  They're a group that's united
>>only by their dislikes and dissent: that's never going to accumulate much
>>following.
>>
>>Mike Huben
> 
>	This is why people must choose rational
>philosophy--Objectivism--before they endorse a
>political platform.

	Or at least it helps.  Libertarians are not necessarily united by
"dislikes and dissent".  Libertarians have a particular understanding of the
way in which society functions.  One noticable example is their above-average
understanding of economics.  They know why various government programs fail
to live up to expectations.  Libertarians are united primarily by positives.
They are individualists, they support the free market, they support individual
rights, they support individual liberty.  Libertarians support the rights
to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.  These are all
positives.

	Objectivists, at least, can see the value of this.  Others can often
see the value of Libertarian positions, though from different philosophical
perspectives and interests.

> 
>-- 
>Peter Johnson	       "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience	
>Independent Studies     cannot blindly follow orders." --Capt. Jean-Luc
>University of Waterloo  Picard (Patrick Stewart) to Adm. Haftel, STAR TREK:
>	   		THE NEXT GENERATION, "The Offspring"

Mark Sulkowski
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: An answer to one of David Sill's questions
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:54:16 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Oct13.172855.29723@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu writes:
> Dave Sill asks:
> 
> >Name some prominent Libertarians--CEO's, actors, writers, etc.

Also, Dave Barry, David Letterman, Clint Eastwood.  P.J. O'Rourke
associates with the Cato Institute a lot (although he might 
consider himself a Republican).

thant
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:15:13 GMT

parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>Thanks for your little example.  It's clearer than mine was, and I hope it
>convinces Thant that at least theoretically his beloved market can be
>inefficient in certain regards.

Don't get so smug, yet, Doug.  You never did explain why the *consumers*
had to be forced with guns to make this *investment* that is supposed to
make them so much better off, considering their benefit as both
*consumers* and *investors*.  Oops?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: jkresse@ptimtc.tadw.panasonic.com (Jim Kresse ATVL )
Subject: Re: An answer to one of David Sill's questions
Organization: Panasonic ATVL, Burlington, NJ
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:10:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.161442.19022@cirrus.com> lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis) writes:
>
>Dave Sill asks:
>
><Name some prominent Libertarians--CEO's, actors, writers, etc.
>
>I believe David or Charles Koch, of Koch Industries in Wichita, Kansas
>ran for the VP slot with the Libertarian Party sometime back.  I
>don't know exactly when.
>
>If I'm incorrect about Koch running as a Libertarian VP, I trust that
>someone will provide correct information.

David Koch ran as the Libertarian VP candidate in 1980.

Jim Kresse
jim@atvl.panasonic.com

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: craig@jido.b11.ingr.com (Craig Presson)
Subject: Re: Prominent Libertarians (was Re: An answer to one of David Sill's)
Reply-To: craig@jido.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
	<1992Oct13.172855.29723@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<YAMAUCHI.92Oct13133528@sartre.ces.cwru.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:10:32 GMT

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct13133528@sartre.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
   In article <1992Oct13.172855.29723@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
   >Dave Sill asks:
   >>Name some prominent Libertarians--CEO's, actors, writers, etc.

   >Comedian Tommy Chong ... 
   >Frank Zappa ... 
   >Mojo Nixon, Dave Barry, ...
Russell Means.
Clint Eastwood has been mentioned as a small-l lib.

-- cP

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: Michael F. Kamprath <kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: And to the Republic for which it stands....
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 19:58:11 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Aerospace Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A700DB827701C4FC@sprl-mac2016.sprl.umich.edu>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 20:01:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.224539.23396@news2.cis.umn.edu> Jack Stecher,
stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu writes:
>>><| This country is a _democracy_.  It is NOT a "Two Party Sytem."  DO   |
>>>I must disagree.  The United States of America is a republic, it is not
>>>a democracy.
>>
>>After several people pointing out my error in semantics, I concede defeat
>>and thus have fixed the problem.
>>
>>| This country is a _democracy_.  It is NOT a "Two Party Sytem."  DO   |
>		     ^^^^^^^^^^^
>This is fixed?

The change came later in the .sig . . . .

You all can continue to argue over the proper Politically Correct word to use 
to describe our form of government.  The meaning of my .sig is clear (IMHO),
and so I refuse to continue to humor you all over "proper words."

The .sig remains unchanged.

========================================================================
| 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_.  It is NOT a "Two Party Sytem."  DO   |
| NOT believe The Lie that not voting Republican or Democratic will    |
| waste your vote.  Vote for who ever you please, and let the          |
| politicians find out what a democratic republic is all about.        | 
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Keywords: abortion,platform
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:41:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.173041.14248@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (M
ichael A. Shaffer) writes:
>>I
>>would feel no guilt in having a tumor removed (which has its own DNA
>>and is therefore just as human as any embryo right after conception).
>
>And a tumor has hands, feet, lungs, a brain etc. And of course a tumor
>react to pain. This all proves that a tumor is a living person and has
>a right to life.
>
>Yes I am being obtuse but I think you get the point.

I don't know.  Is your point that a fertilized egg has hands, feet, lungs,
and a brain, and reacts to pain?  If so, I'm afraid you've lost me.

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
"Jesus built my car.  It's a love affair.
 Mainly Jesus, and my hotrod."   --Ministry, "Jesus Built My Hotrod"
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:24:46 GMT
 m> <1ave8nINN1hi@armory.centerline.com> <1992Oct8.153846.15441@b11.b11.ingr.com>

craig@jido.b11.ingr.com (Craig Presson) writes:

>I see no equations here -- and that's the problem. The initial case is
>ill-stated, and can be indefinitely shaded toward Parvin's and your
>pro-regulation stance, because you fail to do two fundamental checks
>at the beginning: 1. Give an existence proof; 2. Do the numbers; and
>when you do 2, don't forget to count in the costs of regulation and
>the inefficiency introduced by using the Fed. government, which are [enormous].

1) See my previous posts for a mathematical explanation of how the situation 
I described is a stable equilibrium that wouldn't be countered by market
forces.

2) The federal subsidizing is limited to offsetting start-up costs, after
which it plays no part in the subsequent competition.  There is very little
governemt involvement, so your "costs of reguation and inefficiency" are
miniscule.

>enormous. Then estimate the ill effect of marginal addtional taxes on
>the economy as a whole -- you have left out that every taxpayer's
>discretionary income is reduced by your little scheme, and all the
>others like it, all of which have fine-sounding justifications, and
>"don't cost much" individually. 

As I showed earlier, assuming it's a global good, the only loser is the 
monopoly corporation.
Oh, I suppose I forgot to add in the stimulus to the economy generated by
the majority of people having more money to spend, too.  What makes you
think that this doesn't counter-balance what you're saying?  Empirical
studies have shown that the marginal stimulus to the economy of a consumer's
dollar gain in wealth far exceeds that for corporations.  Witness the soaring
stock prices of the last three years.  How well has that stimulated the
economy?

>Also, society as a whole is not benefitting, only the customers of
>that new enterprise you forced us to start are, but "society as a
>whole" gets to pay (either directly or by debt service).

Agreed.  If the good is not wide-spread, those not needing or wanting it
lose out some.
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Weird looking people...
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:07:45 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <crb2.718469232@Ra.MsState.Edu>, crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
> I want to know why it is that every vocal Libertarian I see looks
> like the dregs of society?  I was at a meeting last night (College
> Republicans) and the head (I assume) of the College Libertarians was
> there (plans to disrupt a Clinton Rally going on..), he was obviously
> misplaced looking.  This guy looked like a 1960's Dobie Gillis (goatee
> and all) 

...like, for instance, Abe Lincoln...

> and was in the midst of a whole lot of 'normal' looking folks.

...like, for instance, Dan Quayle.

> I don't know any more about the Libertarian Party than is in the 
> handouts, what Marrou and Lord have told me on T.V., but I don't think
> that having the scummiest looking people (person) representing your
> candidate (at least here at MSU) is making any points for a hardly
> known candidate.

Obviously, the blow dryer squad is right on the money.  It IS impossible 
to underestimate the political sophistication of the average voter.

> Are you all weird looking or did I just get a sample of the extreme??

I don't know about the rest of these guys, but photos of me routinely 
cause sleepless nights in little kids.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian