HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: antitrust
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:42:02 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


I want to clear up some misconceptions about antitrust laws.

As I have pointed out in a previous post, merely being the sole-supplier
of a good does not in itself free one from the threat of competition.
The antitrust laws were motivated by people who wanted to get into the
market, but couldn't afford to.  The solution was to use the government
to limit the market acess of the established suppliers until the price of
the good was high enough that market entry was possible.  This was done
in the name of competition, of course.  And the movement fed on the fear
and hatred of many monopolies that did seem to wield arbitrary power in
the marketplace.  But more often than not, these monopolies were created
by government force (e.g. the railroads).  

People forget that the point of competition is not multiple suppliers,
but lower consumer prices.  And indeed, antitrust laws are designed to
create multiple suppliers, but they do it by limiting market entry and
therefore causing higher prices.  That is why libertarians are against
antitrust laws.  (That is, besides the fact that they are coercive.)

And if you look back in history, this is what you see.  The monopolies
that survived without or with little assistance in the form of government
intervention did so by constantly lowering prices, not (as is often
claimed) by lowering them to drive everybody out of business, and then
subsequently raising them again.  For example, the price of oil during
the Standard Oil "monopoly" fell from more than $2 per gallon in the
early 1860s to approximately six cents per gallon at the time Standard
Oil was taken to court in 1907.  They had also constantly lost market
share without the 'help' of government.  Standard Oil's market share had
dropped to approximately 64% by 1907.  The same pattern can be seen with
the price of aluminum and the Alcoa 'monopoly.'

If you charge more than everybody else it's called gouging.

If you charge less than everybody else it's called unfair competion.

If you charge the same as everybody else it's called collusion.

thant
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:18:52 GMT

parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>>Whenever two people make an agreement in the free market, they are
>>both engaging in a voluntary act. You want my $10 more than you want
>                    *********
>>the digital watch you are selling; I want the digital watch more than
>>I want my $10. After the transaction is complete, we are both happier
>>than when we started. Note that there are nothing but voluntary acts
>>involved here.
>
>This classical approach is based on the assumption that utility is static.
>That is, if I make a transaction my utility may change, but if I don't it
>will remain the same.  Tell that to someone deciding whether to buy heat,
>food, electricity, etc.
>
>Now you may make the claim that a truly free market would make these
>commodities competitive and non-coercive, but that's a utilitarian conjecture
>about the end result, far removed from this categorical type of argument.
>
>I'm sympathetic to many libertarian arguments, because I think the
>world would be a better place for most without government
>interference in many areas.  But if you're going to base your
>legitimacy on simplistic categorical arguments like this, you can
>count me out.  

I don't understand your argument here at all. Are you saying that
violence is being threatened to one or more of the people engaged in
an exchange in a free market? By definition, the exchange is no longer
a voluntary one under such circumstances. In what way is an agreement
between two people to exchange goods without either threatening force
non-voluntary? I can't see how I'm being simplistic here.
--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 19:59:30 GMT

In article <parvin1.718214048@husc11> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>>wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
>>>Question to the "anarcho"-capitalists and "libertarians" at large:
>>>
>>>Whence the seemingly unshakeable faith in the inability of the private
>>>sector to coerce?
>>>
>>>Seems to me in a buyers' market or sellers' market the sellers or
>>>buyers respectively get the short end of the deal.  Market leverage is
>>>Power.  There are all kinds of things I would do differently if not for
>>>its existence, and I believe I would be freer absent of it.
>
>>Whenever two people make an agreement in the free market, they are
>>both engaging in a voluntary act. You want my $10 more than you want
>                    *********
>>the digital watch you are selling; I want the digital watch more than
>>I want my $10. After the transaction is complete, we are both happier
>>than when we started. Note that there are nothing but voluntary acts
>>involved here.
>
>This classical approach is based on the assumption that utility is static.
>That is, if I make a transaction my utility may change, but if I don't it
>will remain the same.  Tell that to someone deciding whether to buy heat,
>food, electricity, etc.
>
>Now you may make the claim that a truly free market would make these
>commodities competitive and non-coercive, but that's a utilitarian conjecture
>about the end result, far removed from this categorical type of argument.
>
>I'm sympathetic to many libertarian arguments, because I think the world
>would be a better place for most without government interference in many areas.
>But if you're going to base your legitimacy on simplistic categorical arguments
>like this, you can count me out.
>-- 
>===========================================================================
>Douglas Parvin
>parvin1@husc.harvard.edu


Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:469 alt.politics.marrou:1391
From: lgibes@teal.csn.org (Lawrence R. Gibes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Please let Marrou debate!
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:27:13 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.


     I got the  following off of  Libernet last night.   I called  Sally
  Moore and this is for real.  She said that the commission invited Ross
  Perot to enter the debate.  Obviously, if Perot can debate, then Andre
  SHOULD be invited.

     Tell your libertarian friends.  I'm going to start writing a letter
  a day.

>From:    Joe Dehn
>To:      Libernet                            Msg #3741, 01-Oct-92 05:08pm
>Subject: letter protest about debates
>
>Sally Moore, an LP activist in Ohio, is spearheading a letter-writing protest
>to get Andre Marrou included in the presidential debates.
>
>She says:
>
>  Send letters of concern to:
>
>     Janet Brown
>     Executive Director
>     Commission on Presidential Debates
>     601 13th Street NW, Suite 310 South
>     Washington, DC 20005
>
>  Pass the word to other Libertarians to write as many letters as possible.
>
>If you want to contact Sally, call 513-321-7888.
>
>--- Opus-CBCS 1.13
> * Origin: Dehnbase Emerald (1:104/418.0)
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:36:01 GMT
	<ISBELL.92Oct2093100@panther.ai.mit.edu> <6985@transfer.stratus.com>
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: cdt@sw.stratus.com's message of 2 Oct 92 22:21:51 GMT

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
|> |If the employees of these "private security companies" carry guns, they
|> |are cops, and they are coercive.  If courts can still enforce contracts 
|> |and punish people who break contracts, then they are coercive.
|> 
|> There's an interesting axiomatic flaw here.  If I sign a contract but
|> refuse to pay, I must be coerced into paying.  OF course, I maintain
|> that contracts are meaningless.  My consent is internal and pieces of
|> paper are irrelevant to that consent.  I can say I that I consent but
|> not.  

|Oh.  You mean "commit fraud."  <gavel>  Next.

You deleted the rest.  Your "commit fraud" comment *requires* a
"social contract" which I haven't signed.  I think this is fine *but*
it was this very newsgroup where people argued that there was no such
thing.

Just making a simple point.

--
Peace.
         "It's rural America.  It's where I came from.  
          We always refer to ourselves as real America.  
          Rural America, real America, real, real, America."
                      -- Vice President Dan Quayle
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: antitrust
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:23:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.155910.15598@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
}Ok, now I have a few questions.  Are monopolies in a libertarian society
}good or bad?  Are they something that will happen in a libertarian society,
}or are they something that is impossible to exist without government help?
}
}Different libertarians seem to have very different views on these issues.
}I imagine getting rid of government support of the idea of 
}"corporations" could make monopolies much more difficult...        

Natural monopolies are not a problem.  Coercive monopolies are.  We oppose
the latter and not the former.

Natural monopolies are extremely rare.  Alcoa is about the only example I
I know of, and it had to gain its position by outcompeting the rest, and still
had to compete with other metal producers.


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: LP Statement of Purpose...Oops!
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:30:56 GMT

Received my California voter information pamphlet the other day.
Toward the end of the pamphlet, there's a "Political Party Statements
of Purpose" page, where each party gets to print a paragraph or so or
propaganda.

One sentence in the LP's statement reads:

"It seems that liberty is in bloom everywhere, except here.  And the
purpose of the Libertarian Party is to reverse that trend."

Now, I know what they mean, and you know what they mean...it just seems
they might have reworded it to make it just a bit less ambiguous.

---
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4

How can you be ignorant of something you didn't know in the first place?
                                                      - Choo

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Subject: LP Position Regarding UN
Originator: lando@tango
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:09:36 GMT



Ken Bell writes:
}
}Does the libertarian party support US withdrawl from the UN?
}//////////////////////////////////////
}/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
}//////////////////////////////////////

>>Tim Starr replies:
>>Yep.

Why does the LP support withdrawing from the UN?




-- 
"He is the best friend of American liberty who is most sincere and active
 in promoting pure and undefiled religion." John Witherspoon, signer of the
 Declaration of Independence.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:26:33 -0400 
From: "Stephen P. Marting" <spam+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Fwd: Education (Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.)

This came up in response to a post I forwarded from here to a CMU
newsgroup.  I'm not very familiar with the education voucher system, and
would appreciate it if anyone else would be able to answer these
questions.

---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

X-Andrew-WideReply: cmu.misc.opinion
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: via nntppoll with nntp; Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:20:00 -0400 (EDT)
Newsgroups: cmu.misc.opinion
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Education (Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.)
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:02:01 GMT

In article <kem_a8600YV9052y9J@andrew.cmu.edu> "Stephen P. Marting"
<spam+@CMU.EDU> writes:

   Excerpts from cmu.misc.opinion: 29-Sep-92 Re: Fwd: Education (Re: Que..
   by Nick Haines@CS.CMU.EDU 
   > So as I understand it, the voucher system provides state funding for
   > the education of the poor?
   >  
   > Is that really a Libertarian policy?

   No, because that isn't quite the voucher system.  I believe vouchers are
   distributed to everyone, who may use them to go anywhere.

Well, that's basically what I meant. Everyone (all parents/guardians,
say) gets vouchers. Schools take vouchers in payment for education.
The distributor of the vouchers redeems them. Of course, in a fully
Libertarian system there'd be nothing to prevent a free market in
these vouchers: I could in theory buy my groceries with them. Can you
say `cash'? That way you can miss out the redemption part: just give
out money to all parents. This is child welfare, isn't it?  (whatever
you call it here, `child benefit' in Britain). So you replace the
state education system with an extensive child welfare scheme. This
might well be a good idea, but I don't think it'll be light on
administration. It would have to be funded through some form of
taxation, of course. In the final analysis you are paying for the
education of the poor by taxing the rich (what I meant by the comment
above).

I guess you should oblige parents/guardians to ensure the education of
their children in some way. You do this by tagging each voucher (can't
give out cash) with the child's name, and only accepting vouchers from
inspected schools (home schooling is a good idea, but only if the
children _are_ being schooled, and the parents aren't just spending
the money on beer, so you have to inspect home schools too). So you
also have a schools inspection programme, which means more
bureaucracy.

All in all it's a neat idea but one with all sorts of ramifications.
Surely it's simpler (and more Libertarian) to simply kill the state
education system and the welfare system and just let people fend for
themselves? This is what I meant by my original question about
vouchers, since to me they smack of big government.

   Whether or not that is Libertarian probably depends more on who gives
   out the vouchers and how than who they are given to.

   As I said, I'm not too familiar with the system.  Questions would be
   better directed to alt.politics.{marrou,libertarian}.

I don't have time to add another newsgroup to my reading list....

Nick


Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:490 alt.politics.marrou:1406
From: IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Nicholas C. Hester)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Why should I vote for Marrou?
Date: 3 Oct 92 13:31:46 GMT
 <1992Oct1.203557.4039@cs.yale.edu> <92276.115733REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Organization: University of Maine System

In article <92276.115733REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, <REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
says:
>
>   I can guarantee that I WILL vote LP anywhere that I do not see
>a greater need in Stopping a particular person (Linda Bean vs. Tom
>Andrews... Linda Bean has GOT TO BE STOPPED.  Even though Tom Andrews
>
>                    <text deleted>
>
>   3) We, the people, can fight infringements on our Civil Liberties
>      without getting into a National Pissing Contest over limited

Interesting, since Andrews is one of the prime gutters of the 2nd Amend.
Not to mention his support of socialized medicine and support of public
schools and the higher taxes needed to pour more money into them.  His
Communitarian attitude at the expense of personal freedom is known.
___

  Nicholas  Hester                  "I'm a virgin...I'm just not good at it."
ia80024@Maine.bitnet                                 -Ramada, "Hot Shots!"
ia80024@Maine.maine.edu
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:19:59 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <ISBELL.92Oct2083027@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

> Oh, stop it.  I've been attacked as a statist and told how I believe
> this that and the other by everyone who can't seem to tell the
> difference between questioning the assertion of the inherent
> wonderfulness of vouchers and "defending the state" to worry about the
> sensitivity of the McDonalds crowd on USENET.
> 
> Personally, I like Mickey D's.  I also like fatty foods.  I can do
> that and still appreciate the irony of someone saying that vouchers
> will be wonderful for education--we'll get the equivalent of
> McDonald's. 
> 
> The point of my reply, for the subtle-impaired is this:  customer
> satisfaction is not necessarily a function of quality.

This is such an elitist argument that rebuttal is almost hopeless.

If quality is not giving people exactly what they want, what is it?
Who defines it?  And who made him God?  
-- 

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
From: pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson)
Subject: Measure 9 in Oregon
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:26:34 GMT

	To the Oregonians reading this newsgroup, what are you doing to
oppose Measure 9?

-- 
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"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: "Child Abuse"
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:43:16 GMT

conroym@news.colorado.edu (Matthew Conroy) writes:
>This seems quite inconsistant with libertarian ideals...
>
>The child is forced by the state to attend school, and then
>is violently attacked by those employed...the child never
>agreed to obey any rules, with or without threat of
>violence...

"violently attacked?"  Enough said about exaggeration.

It should be obvious by now that the government forcing anyone to go to
school is not libertarian.  However, people enjoying/suffering the
consequences of their actions is very libertarian, and parents telling
their children, "go to a school I approve or go live on your own (always
an implied option in the libertarian household)," is certainly
acceptable.

I was told when I went to school that If I misbehaved excessively, I'd
get spanked.  I did and I did.

But, I have to say again, since this is a.p.libertarian, this should not
be a government issue, but a school/teacher/parent/child issue.  If you
want to send your child to a school that fines the kids for misbehavior,
fine (pun intended).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Subject: Re: You can't, and shouldn't TRY, to control the economy.
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 23:13:47 GMT


I wrote:

>The fundamental flaw with
>mathematical economics is that what is being measured (value) is
>subjective, ordinal (as opposed to cardinal), and unconserved.  

In article <1992Oct6.213354.26765@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, adams@liszt.berkeley.edu writes:

> Are you being serious here?  Since when does a mathematical model have to
> measure only objective, ordinal (whatever you mean by that), and
> conserved quantities.

Value is subjective.  Not only is something's value different from 
person to person, but it is different for a single person from 
moment to moment.

Value is ordinal, that is, value manifests itself as choices between
things.  I choose to make house payments instead of buying another car.
(Ordinal numbers just order things, like first, second, and third.
Cardinal numbers, in contrast, specify amounts.)  One aspect of the
importance of this is that just because I might be willing to trade
three apples for two oranges doesn't mean that I am willing to trade
one apple for two thirds of an orange.

Value is unconserved.  This follows from the fact that value is 
subjective, as well as from the fact that value is a function of
a constantly changing and inhomogeneous set of external conditions.

Market prices are a manifestation of aggregate preferences, but (besides
accounting in a specific common medium) mathematics can only say things
about value by assuming conditions (i.e. no entrepreneurs, homogenous
information, etc.) that basically make anything learned almost useless.


> >It may
> >not be the intent of the mathematical economist to 'merely' encode past
> >economic events, but that is all that can be logically said about the
> >'success' of an economic model independent of insight into human action.
> 
> The mathematics can include insight into human action.  This is the field of
> utility theory which mathematically models human behavior.

It is exactly the application of mathematics to utility theory that 
is fundamentally flawed for the reasons I have stated (among others).

thant
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Illiteracy is not an unthinkable option.
Date: 3 Oct 92 12:29:19 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <dy+pkda.rlglende@netcom.com>, rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:

[...]

> I also know a woman who never attended school. She learned everything from
> occasional instruction at home and a lot of reading. She went through college
> with a few remedial courses at the beginning.
> 
> Does anyone have any other evidence in this regard ?

Yes.  I have been a professor of Linguistics at the University of
Kansas for 17 years, but I was unable to complete high school due to
poverty and the need to earn a living for myself & mother.  I learned
most of what I knew when I entered college from reading.  Like the
woman you speak of, I entered college (CCNY) after a few make-up courses
which I handled easily, including physics and chemistry (well, those
weren't so easy :-) but I handled them).

I graduated CCNY (*before* open admissions) magna cum laude and was
on fellowships throughout graduate school.  

Do people like me constitute evidence for anything?  I don't know.
Because I was so bookish, my youth was a maladjusted mess.  But I
wouldn't trade it for anything.  (If I were growing up now, I suspect
some misguided soul would have "cured" my introversion and I would
have been screwed...)

********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian