HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?  (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:31:57 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu

In <1jt6a7INNk8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Brandon D. Ray wrote:
> 4.)  If taken literally (as it often is) it cannot be signed in good 
> conscience by minarchists, since *any* gov't involves at least the 
> possibility of the initiation of the use of force...for one thing, you have
> to oppose all taxation, for any reason, in order to be true to the oath...
> yet a person could be willing to accept limited taxation as a necessary
> evil, still accept *every* other plank in the platform, and not be
> able to sign the pledge.

You know, I hadn't thought it through in connection with the pledge, but I
believe Mr. Ray is correct.

Minarchists should take this is a big, neon-lit *clue* that there is a
dangerous contradiction in their belief system.

Instead, what does the LP do?  Duh.  Abolish the pledge.  Of *course*.

Sometimes I think there's no intelligent life on this planet.
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3817 talk.politics.misc:69002
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: New idea for school vouchers
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:34:33 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <93019.010831U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>, U16244@uicvm.uic.edu (David James Alexander Hanley) writes:
> 
> In article <C12Dsw.AC7@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
> Rubin) says:
>
> >It would take little time to do this.  A private school could be established
> >rather quickly, even within weeks.
> 
>   I have a hard time seeing how this could take place.  Weeks?  It,
> I think, is a somewhat more complex process to set up a school than you
> think.  Getting new teachers, administrators, books, getting investors,
> students... Etc, e etc...

Weeks might be pushing it, though a small school of an informal nature could
probably be done.  A year or two would be plenty of time.  Announce now that
starting either in the 93-94 school year of the 94-95 school year, a voucher
system will exist, with the voucher of a sufficient value to give a good
education, and there will be more than enough private school space by that time. 
The schools will be practically breaking people's doors down trying to market
themselves.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Eliminate membership
Date: 27 Jan 93 08:43:01 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

For people not following LPUS, something interesting has come
up. Joe Dehn called information in DC and asked for the
Republican and Democaratic parties. He was given the numbers for
the RNC and DNC. His intention was to find out how many members
each of the major parties has. He could not get an answer. There
are members of the *NC and contributors to the parties, but
neither party has a concept of "member" like the LP.

Do you ask someone if they are a member of the Democratic party?
No, you ask if they are a Democrat.

Apparently Americans do not expect political parties to have
members. Membership is reserved for special interest advocacy
groups, churches, secret societies, etc.

Hmmm... maybe the LP should do away with the concept of
membership altogether. Then the oath question would be irrelevant.
It would require changes, such as to how delegates are
apportioned, but would they be any harder than the changes
required to eliminate the oath?

--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "You got to earn yr freedom"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: gff%Rational.COM (Geoff Fitch)
Subject: Libertarian Republicans
Organization: Rational
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:46:15 GMT

I understand there is an orginazation of libertarian Republicans. Can someone
post some information on this with a phone number?
From: damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Date: 26 Jan 1993 17:00:13 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

In article <DDFr-250193144500@law-mac-28.uchicago.edu> DDFr@Midway.UChicago.Edu (David Friedman) writes:
>I would like to add two points on the subject of the "pledge."
>
>1. My personal objection to it (the reason I would be reluctant to sign it,
>as opposed to any reasons I might think it a bad idea for the party to
>require it) is not that I am a "consequentialist" rather than a "natural
>rights" libertarian, but that I do not believe it states a correct natural
>rights position. This is not because it is badly written but because, in my
>opinion, the subject of rights is too complicated to be summed up in any
>short statement that both says something substantial and is true. I think
>almost any thoughtful person who has signed the pledge could be convinced
>that there are some (imaginable although perhaps implausible) situations in
>which he would be in favor of initiating coercion. That is why, on the one
	I agree with David Friedman here.  By the Nolan test I was sent
several years ago I'm a 100/100 (no taxation question) but I do not 
know that I would be with other questions.  The NCP is the only other principle
I've codified for myself, but I know that in some situations I would 
choose some coercion as the lesser of two evils.  To steal an example
from _Machinery_of_Freedom_, if someone was going to machine gun a crowd,
and I could stop him by stealing (to be later returned) a rifle on someone
else's property, a someone who hd stated before that NO ONE was to touch his
rifle for ANY reason, I would do so.  Yet this would violate at least
a simple version of the NCP, as you are the one initiating force, by 
stealing the rifle before anyone has been shot. [Further proviso: you will
NOT be among those machine-gunned]  The NCP is a powerful principle, but
I would be reluctant to say outright that it is absolute.
>
>David Friedman
>University of Chicago Law School

		-- Phoenix -- Damien R. Sullivan  [X-) Kiljoy]
6x9=42 | AIXELSYD | 1374245896=4 | Libertarian Dictatorship
Honk if you're American and have heard of Steeleye Span... 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: schmidt@netcom.com (Christopher VA Schmidt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed
Summary: Groucho Marx vs. Bill Clinton
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:44:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Groucho Marx: I wouldn't want to belong to any club that
	would accept me as a member. [attr]
Bill Clinton: I wouldn't send my daughter to any school in a district where
	85% of the population would vote for a Democrat.
-- 
--Christopher VA Schmidt, Redwood City, California
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:25:02 GMT

Most of the proposals for improving the LP are good, and oughta be adopted.
However, I have three objections, which I've argued about vociferously on
libernet:

1) limiting the platform to 10 planks.

2) limiting stategy to 2-5 years.

3) getting rid of the membership pledge.

The problem with our current platform is that it was written by the now-
defunct Radical Caucus of Typhoid Murray Rothbard, who's a dandy economic
theorist but a terrible politician.

The problem is not that it takes a long-range view, but that it doesn't
have a well-enough developed short-range part.  The problem isn't that it's
long, but that it isn't prioritized.

I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that the membership pledge costs
us many supporters.

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
Subject: Life & Liberty
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:06:48 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

i saw another one of those "Life. What a beautiful choice." ads 
tonite. whether you are pro-choice or not it's pretty obvious that 
they're effective at changing the image of the anti-abortion 
movement. they don't scream in your face, they're generally non-
intrusive & even make decent eye candy. they're also difficult to 
counter. how is the pro-choice movement going to respond? "Death. 
What a beautiful choice.", while showing visuals of a successful 
young woman & a bag of blood & tissue that would have turned her into 
a welfare mother? naah. 

let's not get into an abortion debate here, but wouldn't a similar 
tactic work for the LP? start running low-key commercials -now-. well-
lit ads with "ordinary people" explaining why they prefer to make an 
individual choice on any number of issues. keep track of Clinton's 
latest screw-ups & cover those topics without acknowledging the 
competition. close 'em up with "sponsored by the Libertarian Party". 
by 1996 we've got name recognition. coupled with a more pragmatic 
platform we'd at least be able to make a showing, or get the 
Republicrats to move away from the parental role they seem so fond of.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`   "...And I didn't even need pants!!" -- Dilbert, on the internet   `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:52:30 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <1k2tfhINNcos@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
}>
}>The reason the LP is perceived to be weird is because of what typhoid Murray's
}>Radical Caucus did to it after they drove out the Kochtopus.
}>
}Excuse me...are you under the impression that any significant fraction of the
}American public (even of the politically aware portion) even knows who
}Murray or Koch *are*?

No.  But many are aware of the difference between the LP prior to the RC
takeover and afterwards.  I've had people tell me they remember well Clark's
gubernatorial campaign in CA, 1978.  People who learned of the LP since
the RC takeover doesn't have as good an impression of it.

}>}Don't you think they would be likely to give even more if they
}>}weren't considered second class by the LP?
}>
}>Nope.  Why would you think this?
}>
}Because people are more likely to give you a gift if you treat them 
}respectfully, as if they are people worthy to come in the front door of the
}house.  If you treat them like servants, and send them around to the kitchen
}entrance, a lot of them will never make it.

Why is it impossible for us to respect non-members?

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: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: could be a nice idea: international news digests on a.p.l 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 13:59:26 +0000

In article <s0499528.77.0@let.rug.nl> s0499528@let.rug.nl writes:

>Discussions on alt.politics.libertarian have been very interesting and
>enlightening for as long as I've been reading them. However, there is one
>problem. These discussions, when not about matters of principle, are almost
>exclusively about the USA, which puts readers outside the USA in the
>uncomfortable position of being unable to understand every detail of them.

Although in Britain we tend to be a little closer to the USA than most
of Europe (and I don't just mean physically <g>), I agree with you that
I find it inhibiting sometimes because the conversation is about (what
seem to be) purely American laws and attidudes.

>        Maybe it would be a nice idea for a number of a.p.l readers from
>around the world to contribute weekly (or bi-weekly, or monthly...) digests
>of relevant news events in their own countries, clearly marked so that other
>readers could comment on them. With relevant news events I mean events that
>illustrate or support the views of people on either side of the
>aforementioned debates.

I'm interested...

>The successes and failures of privatisations in the UK;

Are there any successes?  Of either privatisation or nationalisation?
From what I've seen, any *change* instituted by the government means
lowered efficiency and the top people getting richer.  Otherwise, it
seems, they don't make the change...

>and so on. None of these are items that would herald the end of the world as
>we know it, but no doubt some libertarians, sceptics or anti-libertarians
>would want to hear of them, to provide themselves with examples to use in
>their postings. I am willing to do a digest on the Netherlands (mentioned by
>some posters as a semi-Libertarian example) myself, but only if I hear from
>people who want it, and only if I'm not going to be the only person to do it.

I've long liked the Netherlands, and thought that although not perfect,
it seemed more 'civilised' than the rest of Europe.  The opinions from
there (and the rest of the world) on libertarian issues would be
interesting (to me, at least).

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge? (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:53:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) says:

>In article <1k2sncINNcde@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>}Okay, Tim:  I score 100/90 on the WSPQ.  I believe we should:
>}
>}1.  Abolish the draft.
>}
>}2.  End all censorship for any reason.
>}
>}3.  Repeal all laws against sex by consenting adults.
>}
>}4.  Repeal all drug laws.
>}
>}5.  Repeal all immigration and emigration restrictions.
>}
>}6.  Abolish farm subsidies.
>}
>}7.  Abolish all tariffs.
>}
>}8.  Repeal all minimum wage laws.
>}
>}9.  Stops paying for the national defense of Japanese and Europeans.
>}
>}What's missing?  I am not sure, in my heart, that we can completely 
>}eliminate involuntary taxation.  I checked that box "maybe", and I am willing
>}to have taxation continue in some form, if it cannot be *proven* that
>}the gov't can be funded by voluntary means..and I suspect that it cannot
>}be proven.  Since taxation, by definition, cannot be accompished without
>}the initiation of the use of force, *in principle* I should not sign
>}the oath.  But I do anyway, because it seemed to me at the time to be
>}an acceptable compromise.
>}
>}So what does that make me?  Unprincipled?  Just "another conservative" who
>}should not be "granted haven" in the LP?
>
>Strongly libertarian, but partly conservative.
>
>}Or would you be willing to call me a libertarian and have me work with you
>}to try to move this country in a directio nwe both want it to go?
>
>I welcome help from any source.  I merely object to supporters of coercion
>being allowed in as LP members.  If you or others like you join, then you
>should agree not to support it for the term of your membership.
>
Are you that blinded by ideology?  Well, the bad news is that I went ahead
and signed the pledge or oath or whatever you want to call it.  I do not
interpret it in the absolutist way which you seem to feel is necessary.
If you wish to send the Thought Police after me, I will be at their
mercy.
>
>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
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bright@unlv.edu (Paul Conte)
Subject: Re: The big difference
Organization: Highly Organized
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 23:19:16 GMT

In article <1jpmdnINNfdh@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>
>So, to use a common example, you believe that human slavery is just
>fine and dandy, as long as 'society' thinks it's ok?  You believe
>that discrimination against blacks is fine as long as the white
>majority thinks it ok?  You don't believe that there are some 
>things which should not be allowed even if 'society' thinks that
>they should?  You believe that there is no right or wrong except
>that which is acceptable by 'society'?  Well, you're entitled
>to your own opinion (that is, until 'society' says you're not).

James Howe is responding to Mike Huben who asserts that rights are created
by governments and/or societies and do not inherently exist.

I feel that rights are not apparently inherent because they cannot be
objectively defined.  Most things that do exist can be defined: I sit
on a chair.  Everyone understands what a chair is.  There are also
things which may exist which cannot be defined.  For instance, thought
is very difficult to define.  But it feels like it exists (at least
for me :-) ).  Human rights are similar.  

Today, people claim that they have the right to
health care, jobs, and other things.  Governments, as well, claim to
have special rights: to tax, go to war, put a person in prison, etc.
All people have their own opinion of which rights exist at all.  In a
society, many complex forces work to shape the general sentiment
toward rights.  In medieval England, common law "governed" people's
coexistence.  Common law was not written down, yet the people seemed
to understand its implications.  People feel that murder is wrong, but
one cannot logically refute, for instance, that maybe killing exists
as a necessary part of evolution.  Rights are subjective.

When the Constitution was drawn up, the authors defined the three
basic rights of man as the right to live, the right to live in
freedom from coercion, and the right to own property.  These do not
necessarily physically exist, though, whatever the authors may have
thought.

As a libertarian, however, I believe that these rights will best
"govern" our society in that it will maximize the happiness of people
in general (uh, call me a semi-utilitarian :-) ).  I really don't see
any other good reason for a government to exist if not to accomplish
this goal.  And if it can be shown that government hinders this goal,
then I think that government is inappropriate.

>
>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
>University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
>Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
>

----------
Paul R Conte	   		"Those who know what's best for us...
bright@unlv.edu	    		 MUST RISE AND SAVE US FROM OURSELVES."
Computer Science					- Rush
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?  (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Date: 24 Jan 1993 04:35:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) says:

>Would someone please post some of the objections to the pledge?  I didn't 
>really have a problem with it, and I'm curious as to why anyone would object 
>(note that I wouldn't have signed the pledge without that key word 
>"initiation"...is it that there are some versions of the pledge without that?).
>
>--
>Steve Conley                       "Jupiter:  America's dairy land!" --MST3K
>sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu    | Disclaimer:  OSU is too damn big to
>Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian! |              have any opinions at all.
>
1.)  It doesn't protect us from anything, as an unscrupulous person who 
wishes to co-opt the party can simply lie.

2.)  It scares away some people because of its resemblance to a loyalty
oath.  

3.)  There would be a few people who could not sign it because their religion
does not permit oaths.

4.)  If taken literally (as it often is) it cannot be signed in good 
conscience by minarchists, since *any* gov't involves at least the 
possibility of the initiation of the use of force...for one thing, you have
to oppose all taxation, for any reason, in order to be true to the oath...
yet a person could be willing to accept limited taxation as a necessary
evil, still accept *every* other plank in the platform, and not be
able to sign the pledge.

5.)  It may be illegal, in some states, once we have gained recognized
status as a political party.

I may have missed some points.  I am sure others can fill in the gaps.

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: National Committee endorses facelift for LP
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:46:00 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <DDFr-250193144500@law-mac-28.uchicago.edu> DDFr@Midway.UChicago.Edu (David Friedman) writes:
}I think
}almost any thoughtful person who has signed the pledge could be convinced
}that there are some (imaginable although perhaps implausible) situations in
}which he would be in favor of initiating coercion.

I agree, but this doesn't mean that it should be permissible for such an
individual to do so.  All it means is that the benefits of committing such
crime would exceed the costs.


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