HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carlp@frigg.isc-br.com (Carl Paukstis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:48:30 GMT
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

>In article <7054@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>In article <parvin1.718418434@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>>> So, if the start-up costs are such that competition won't occur, and if
>>> the entrenched company is making relatively enormous profits, I don't
>>> see any moral problem with regulation or subsidized entrance for competition.

>>Let me see if I can paraphrase this.  If market conditions are such that
>>any person would be an idiot to voluntarily invest in a competing start-up, 
>>you would be in favor of the government forcing all of the citizens to make 
>>exactly this investment.  Forgive me if I admit that I don't understand this.

>You don't understand it because you are not counting the value to society
>of being able to purchase product at a lower, competitive price.  Individual
>investors can only count the reduced profit after competition minus the
>startup costs.  Society as a whole can count as profit the reduction in price
>times the quantity purchased by society minus the startup costs. 

Repeat often:  "Society" does not exist as an entity which has rights
or can receive benefits.  

Show me which individuals benefit, and how.

OK, I saved $0.89 on the purchase of this product, which I buy 52
times per year.

Gee, isn't that about the same as my share of the tax dollars your
government scheme used to subsidize the competition?

Or is it more?  If so, doesn't that necessarily mean that somebody who
DOESN'T use the product paid EXTRA tax dollars for the subsidy, and is
therefore now subsidizing ME?

Sorry, no sale.  If that's the way you want things to work, I'll stick
with the monopoly company.  I pay a little more per purchase, but less
in taxes - and I get to decide PERSONALLY how my dollars are spent.

BTW - if the product is so good for "society", why isn't there more
economic incentive to enter the market?  Inelastic demand?  Then how
will competition lower the price?  Or maybe the entrenched monopoly
producer is selling at a low profit, insufficient to attract
competitors.  NOW how is competition going to lower the price?  By
driving the non-subsidized producer into price-cutting bankruptcy?
--
Carl Paukstis, RRR&RSG           | "Good men must not obey the laws too well"
 ISC-Bunker Ramo / Spokane, WA   |    -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
 Phone: +1 509 927-5439          |  
 Mail: carlp@frigg.isc-br.com    |  My employer accepts no responsibility...
From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:53:44 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <1992Oct04.232046.12197@CS.ORST.EDU>, clarkmi@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Michael Clark) writes:
|> 
|> a radical thought experiment:  Suppose tomorrow, your local school
|> district announced that there wasn't enough funding and it was shutting
|> down its operation completely.  What would happen?
|> 

Well, first we would have to wait for the applause to die down.

Then the people would be free to send their kids to real schools with
the money the local school district has been extorting.

Of course, we all know this will never happen.  It might shut down all
the teaching operations, but it would never shut down the administrative
operations.  Too many people making too much money at the expense of the
taxpayer for that.  Not to mention all those poor schoolbus drivers that
would be put out of work.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: skinny@board8.uucp (skinny)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Organization: board8
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 15:43:33 GMT

shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:

>>My thinking is starting to turn in this direction also, after several
>>years of voting for the "least bad" of the demopublican (or are they
>>republicrats?) party's candidates.  I am even thinking that it might

>I prefer republicrats as it flows better.

>>be appropriate to vote for libertarians in those races in which they
>>are running, and NO ONE in the others.  I would think that this would
>>help indicate that the demopublican party is totally unwanted.
>>					- Dave

>Dave I would disagree with the NO ONE part. If there is no lib available
>I would like to be able to have a part in damage control. I look at the
>candidates stand on the issues. I have three major issues that concern
>me (along with several minor issues). If no Libertarian is available
                                       ------------------------------
>then I would look at the other choices. If they differ on an important
>issue then I vote for the candidate that best matches my ideals.

>				mike

 Amazing. Don't judge the candidate. First choice is ANY libertarian. 
Good job.  It sure beats thinking!

thank you.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Abortion (was: Please let Marrou debate!)
Summary: Libertarian Platform is Pro-Choice
Keywords: abortion,platform
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:49:19 GMT

In article <BvvoHB.99E.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>The Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in PA is (loudly)
>anti-abortion.  He's running the controversial ads which
>show pictures of dismembered fetuses.  I had previously
>thought that the Libertarian stand did not include
>advocating the criminalization of abortion.  Was I wrong?
>Is there a split on this issue?
>
>Susan

The national LP platform is firmly pro-choice, and I don't think it 
will be changing in the near future.  However, there are anti-choice 
Libertarians (typically the religious types from the Advocates for 
Self-Government) in Ohio who, while being a minority, have enough clout
to prevent the LPO from having a firm pro-choice stand.  I'm hoping that
will change at the next LPO convention in June '93 (in Columbus! Come if
you can!), since I'm *militantly* pro-choice and I think we look WEAK
for not having a position on this issue.  I think all our candidates in
Ohio are pro-choice, though.

Every political party has its kooks.  Anti-choice Libertarians are
amoung ours.  If your local party is running anti-choice candidates,
get involved, get your pro-choice libertarian friends involved, and
change the state-level platform.

Steve Conley | Member, Libertarian Party of Ohio
             | President, Student Libertarians at the Ohio State University
             | "I'M PRO-CHOICE AND I OWN A GUN!"
             | sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: crossgl@infonode.ingr.com (Gordon Cross)
Subject: Re: A question for Steven Soar
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:31:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.054915.13086@cirrus.com> lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis) writes:

>If you want to compare the economic power of Japan, Germany, and
>the United States with the amount of intervention.  Why not
>link the high cost of living in Japan with government intervention?
>Many Japanese households have 100 year mortgages for a small cubby-hole.

You know, I cannot understand why *anyone* would choose a 100-year mortgage
over a 30-year one.  This has little effect on the payment unless the interest
works out to a small part of it (ie. each payment is mostly principal).  Take
as an example a $300,000 mortgage at 8% (of course I can't say much about
what the interest rates are in Japan):

	 30-years	$2201.29/month		  $492,465.74 total payback
	100-years	$2000.69/month		$2,100,827.06 total payback

I certainly wouln't extend my obligation by more than a factor of 3 to reduce
monthly payments by less than 10%.  Seems someone is getting rich ripping off
home buyers in Japan ...
-- 

Gordon Cross          UUCP:     uunet!ingr!infonode!crossgl   "all opinions are
111 Westminister Way  INTERNET: crossgl@infonode.ingr.com    mine and not those
Madison, AL 35758     MA BELL:  (205) 730-7842               of my employer."
From: bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Utopia is not an option
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:50:44 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

Even more importantly, why are Libertarians held to a higher standard than
the other political powers??

Why is it accepted to argue that Libertarians can't solve:
    a) the drug problem
    b) the crime problem
    c) the economic problems
    d) the education problem
    etc. etc. etc.

when the other political powers have had numerous years to work and haven't
even begun to solve these same problems??

The use of the word power instead of party was deliberate.  It's all a
question of power and for the average citizen in this country today, it
isn't any kind of a party.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:727 alt.society.anarchy:412
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:41:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct7.225425.8254@lever.com>, ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge) writes...
>In article <BvGGqy.7wx@acsu.buffalo.edu> sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>>	Are you a left-anarchist?  Why shouldn't lefties kick down other
>>people's doors?  Are they inherently morally superior?  Then why assume
>>that the righties are not?
> 
>It could happen but is less likely to happen. A majority of your community
>would have to agree that it was a good idea. A majority of the region would
>have to decide to not intervene. An a majority of the international community
>would have to decide to let it go also.

	Are you talking about democracy or left-anarchy?  Why should the
majority always get its way without the use of coercion?  Aren't we simply
talking about a bunch of people who go and kick someone's door down?
Why should anyone care about majorities?


>In other words there would be an
>organized response that was explicit, as apposed to this theoretical market
>force bring things in line.

	What you are suggesting is theoretical also!  There's nothing wrong
with theory as long as it accurately reflects reality.  You are merely
asserting that your system will work the way you think it will.  I am
asserting that there are economic incentives for security agencies to
act civily towards people.  At least I am offering a REASON for why I
believe the system will work.  What is YOUR reason that people will act
the way you think they will in your system?  What are the incentives?


>>The poor don't need leverage against anybody.
> 
>There won't be poor, poor are just working people who have been denied a
>useful place by capitalist society. We'll be judge of what we do or don't need.
>The poor can and should use an means available to them to increase their
>leverage until justice is achieved. Anything else is to tie ones own hands.

	How are the poor "denied a useful place by capitalist society"?
Exactly what place would they have?  Would they take care of themselves,
or would others be coerced in taking care of them?  Would they earn their
wealth?

>-- 
>--
>     Edward Elhauge       You will eat (you will eat), bye & bye (bye & bye)
>    Lever Industries      In that glorious land above the sky (way up high)
>      San Francisco       Work & pray (work & pray), live on hay, (live on hay)


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai)
Subject: Re: Please let Marrou debate! -- and CNN's Crossfire
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 18:10:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.000958.16166@photon.com> jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman) writes:
>At the risk of once again bringing up the abortion debate, the argument
>against allowing Libertarians equal access is the same as allowing legal
>abortion:  if it isn't viable, it has no rights.  Conversely, the
>argument for allowing Libertarians equal access is the same as for a ban
>on abortion:  just because it isn't as capable as others doesn't mean that
>it has no rights.
>
>Isn't it ironic that the Republicans vary from their right-to-life
>philosophy in not allowing Marrou to debate?  Conversely, isn't it ironic
>that the Libertarians, who want equal access, won't allow the unviable
>fetus the right to life?
>
>Joe Naiman

Hey, I like the right to life forever too, can you or the Dempublicans
guarantee this right? 

The libertarians say that anyone can give up their guardianship because
NOBODY has a right to life, if you don't believe this talk to me at your
funeral. Accept this fact, it will set you free. 

If the right-to-lifers really cared about life, why don't they adopt
some third world babies, there are millions dying which could be saved
each year, including many in this country. Sometimes, I just don't 
understand the right-to-lifeers' motivations, with so many millions
that could be saved today, they are trying to savethe life of an unviable
fetus that is only a few weeks old. I do like the commercials by some one
who has a lot of money that is encouraging pregnant women to keep their
babies, by showing lots of cute children. Its a powerful commercial and 
followinf the libertarian tradition, rather than trying to pass a law
taking away peoples rights.

adesai@leland.stanford.edu
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Weird looking people...
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:38:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <crb2.718469232@Ra.MsState.Edu>, crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes...
>Are you all weird looking or did I just get a sample of the extreme??

	You got the extreme.  I know some good looking Libertarians, and I
would like to believe that I am one of them (other people have told me so).
Does that help?


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: voucher system?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 08:39:44 GMT

You've asked some good questions, but I think some of the possible problems
will be prevented by making the amount of the voucher a function of annual
public school spending per student.  The CA proposal will make the vouchers
at least half of this.

One way of avoiding a price floor is for the schools to be able to refund
the difference between their tuition and the amount of the voucher if the
tuition is less.  I don't know if this will be permitted under any such
plan that I know of, though.  Even having price floors on education would
be a tremendous improvement over the status quo, though.


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: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Crack Babies
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 17:59:46 GMT

In <1992Oct14.075248.12395@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.223450.25052@cirrus.com> lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis) writes:
>}During the "debate" on Sunday night, all the candidates present stated
>}categorically that they were in favor of the continued criminalization of
>}drugs.
>}Both Bush and Clinton made references to babies crippled because of their
>}mothers were addicted to cocaine.   I understand the Libertarian position
>}on the individual's use of narcotics, but would you Libertarians consider
>}a mother's actions as criminal negligence if she gave birth to baby
>}damaged by drugs?
>Personally, I would, if this could be scientifically proven.  However, the
>latest research shows that the "Crack-baby" meme is purely mythical, and
>not scientific.

More specifically:

1) any birth defects blamed on crack are identical to those caused by
alcohol abuse by the mother.  Considering that a single-substance abuser
is very rare, it's most likely that these effects are not due to crack,
but to alcohol abuse which occurs IN ADDITION TO any possible cocaine
abuse.

2) in order to declare cocaine and crack "addictive", the definition of
"cocaine addiction" and "cocaine withdrawal" had to be significantly
altered, such that the addiction consists of such psychological symptoms
as "morbid craving".  Claims that babies are "addicted" to cocaine on
birth are specious--you cannot determine what a baby does or does not
crave.  Most claims of this rely on the baby "crying more than usual"
or some other such subjective judgement.


I almost started a major argument with my father on this point, because
I was so completely offended that ALL THREE candidates spouted off about
this line of bullshit.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                            plant ice, harvest wind
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: gag65@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: More numbers to call
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:51:07 GMT

For those who are continuing to call the Networks for better coverage of
Marrou/Lord, I also have a fax number for CNN.

CNN Political Unit Fax (404) 681-3578

Some other numbers for CBS that have been somewhat more successful than the
number originally given.

(212) 975-4111
(212) 975-4114
(212) 975-5551

Another number for NBC:

Dee Dee Thomas (212) 664-2490

Another for Associated Press:

(202) 826-6410

The above numbers come from callers in Ohio who have reported some
better responsiveness.

Keep up the good work.


--Gary
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:22:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.225828.17347@unislc.uucp> das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten) writes:
}I'm not for the idea of government subsidizing start-up costs, but total
}deregulation of monopolies doesn't work either.  Once a company gets
}a large enough share of the market, it can guarantee itself a virtual 
}monopoly through techniques that are unethical, and definitely not in 
}the public interest (read: result in price-gouging).  A level playing 
}field for would-be competitors must be legislated, or corporations will 
}again resort to the tricks common in the early part of this century.
}
}Some of the favorite competition-killing tricks were:
}
}   Control Required Industries:  E.g -- a car company tells all it's 
}                steel suppliers to not sell steel to competing car
}                maker, or it won't buy steel from them anymore.
}
}                In oil and cattle industries this was done with
}                the railroads, so even though production by competitors
}                couldn't be curtailed, they couldn't get their product
}                to market.

Every time I hear this line of argument, it turns out that if this was done
successfully at all, it was done by firms that depended upon statist supports.
I know this for a fact in re: railroads.  The only free market railroad was
the Great Northern, which didn't practice this and still out competed its
inferiors such that it was subjected to the first "antitrust" prosecution.

}But price-gouging monopolies on (near) essential commodities can last long 
}enough to make a lot of people's lives miserable!

Case studies of natural monopolies?  I only know of one in recent history.

}In a guaranteed level playing-field a cooperative venture is a great 
}solution, but when the big boys are free to use the above strategies,
}small start-up companies don't have chance.

Bullshit.  What about how Charles Schwab took Bethlehem Steel up from just
being an outdated dependent upon goverment contracts for military ordnance
to being the primary competitor with US Steel within less than two decades?
See "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by Burton Fulsom, Jr., for more info.


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.politics.marrou
From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:56:33 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL

In article <Bw8snD.Mwp@ddsw1.mcs.com> zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh) writes:
>
>	It's SUPPOSED to be a representative govt., but with the fact that
>many people think there are no alternatives to the two parties, it isn't
>representative. Personally, I think you're picking a nit, but maybe not. My
>high school HONORS Government teacher says that the United States is a
>democracy..

	Small clarification.. When I said my govt. teacher says such things,
I'm not saying that the US is a democracy.. I know it's a republic... I'm
expressing the idiocy of my govt. teacher (and the public school system..)

-- 
Sameer_Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
PFA related mail to pfa@ddsw1.MCS.COM   | Specialization is for insects
Anonymous mail to ap.2363@cupid.sai.com |   - Robert A. Heinlein
Fri Oct 16 20:15:51 1992 US Debt: $4,098,027,431,523 Per capita: $16,034
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:51:45 GMT

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <parvin1.718418434@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>> So, if the start-up costs are such that competition won't occur, and if
>> the entrenched company is making relatively enormous profits, I don't
>> see any moral problem with regulation or subsidized entrance for competition.

>Let me see if I can paraphrase this.  If market conditions are such that
>any person would be an idiot to voluntarily invest in a competing start-up, 
>you would be in favor of the government forcing all of the citizens to make 
>exactly this investment.  Forgive me if I admit that I don't understand this.
>-- 

>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...

You understand it perfectly.  People not affected by the monopoly will
be losing out a little.  So yes,
there will be some redistribution (gasp!) occuring.  So if you're against
all redistribution as a matter of principle, nothing I say can convince
you. 

 But to many people, the inventor of an economic policy that creates
more equal incomes while raising or keeping constant total income would 
deserve sainthood - even if some had their incomes curtailed.

Now, I don't know how to do this in general, and maybe
human nature makes it impossible.  But if we can examine small segments
and particular conditions of the market where such programs look
exceedingly promising, like the example given in my post, perhaps we can
make things a little better for the people at large.
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:849 talk.politics.theory:4527