HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Taxation without Representation (Was: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution)
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:27:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1ebqqkINNp8v@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes...
>The founding fathers and authors of the constitution intended for the
>government to be able to evolve.  Searching for security in stasis is a
>path to competitive failure.

	While I agree with your point that the founding fathers were not quite
as anti-tax as libertarians are, I think you are off here.  The founding fathers
saw tremendous danger in unlimited government.  The reason the Constitution
exists is to spell out everything the government is legitimately empowered to
do.  They did not share your notion of 'evolving' government.  If you are
refering to amendments, they were not there to add power to the government,
but only to further restrict the government if it got out of hand.  Look
at the ten amendments.  Do they add powers or remove them?

	By the way, it is perfectly proper for government to be tightly
bound to certain functions.  That way it can (hopefully) be kept from growing
tyrannical and destroying the economy.  Keeping governments 'static' allows
society (especially the free market) to be *dynamic*.  That's how to compete.


Mark Sulkowski
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:29:49 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California

In article <19921113141504ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
   All that is contained in the Constitution deals with powers and
   restrictions given to and placed upon various levels and branches of
   government. Show me even one place where the Constitution asserts that
   there is any obligation on an individual.


Article I, Section 8:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect
                       taxes, ...

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  |    Lord/Genis '96    |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2293 alt.politics.libertarian:1900
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 16 Nov 1992 19:10:12 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <BxoA7x.AyK@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>If you think that producers will not use "good" labels unless
>they are forced by the government, then you haven't heard about free
>market economics.  If you think that the public is not responsible
>enough or capable of determining what a "good" label is (through a free
>market), why would you ever want other people (elected officials)
>mandating what all labels should look like?

Tell me the ingredients in your favorite several alcoholic beverages.
You can't: it's not on the labels.  Why?  Because they are exempted from
labeling laws other than volume and proof.  This has resulted in deaths
from allergic reactions (for example, egg albumen is used to clarify some wine,
and sensative individuals have died from not knowing such obscure industry
practices, which a simple label would reveal.)

It's obvious in the case of alcoholic beverages that the public is not
responsible enough or capable of determining what a "good" label is.
It's obvious that the free market never has either.  So who else do you
propose to do it than elected (or other government) officials?  How will it
be enforced?  Why would it work when it never has before?

I don't know about you, but I like that elected officials have required
lists of ingredients on food and drug product boxes.  I think uniform
labelling standards for important information like that enables consumers
to choose products based on real information, rather than incommensurate
marketing factoids.

We already have some labelling laws.  We can see now that their burden is
not onorous: it's pretty light.  We can see now that their benefits are
clear.  I don't know about you, but I read that information that is
mandated by law.  I read ingredients and measures.

Mike Huben

"I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable.
There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the
intellect." -- Oscar Wilde
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:32:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.001517.19735@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.164537.7160@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Yes, but England wouldn't have withstood as long as it did if the
>>US hadn't taken sides long before Pearl Harbor.  Japan wouldn't
>>have even bombed Pearl Harbor if it wasn't for the United States
>>refusing to sell oil to it -- but that's "meddling" in the Libertarian
>>view of the world.
>
>A libertarian USA wouldn't prohibit selling oil to belligerents, but that
>doesn't mean that individuals (or individual companies) couldn't decide not to
>sell the oil.

All it takes is one.  C'mon, Ken, you know how the market works.

Let's suppose that for some reason, Sohio, Exxon, and Mobil refused to sell
oil to Japan.  Japan will just buy from Texaco.  If Texaco doesn't have
enough, Texaco will buy from Exxon (or will Exxon extend its boycott?) or from
someone else who will buy from Exxon.  Japan gets all the oil it wants.

Only governmental action could have kept oil from the belligerents.  (Or
cartelization, which I suppose would've happened if the Libs had repealed
all the antitrust laws and there was still an oil monopoly in the US.  But
then it's just concentrated power in an oil monopolist instead of the US
government.  I fail to see why it's better for one oil monopolist to dictate
foreign policy than the elected representatives of the nation.  And there's
no reason to believe that such a monopolist wouldn't have sold to the 
Japanese.)
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:20:35 PST

In article <RJC.92Nov16092949@devo.unify.com>, on 16 Nov 92 17:29:49 GMT,
rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:

>
>In article <19921113141504ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
>   All that is contained in the Constitution deals with powers and
>   restrictions given to and placed upon various levels and branches of
>   government. Show me even one place where the Constitution asserts that
>   there is any obligation on an individual.
>
>
>Article I, Section 8:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect
>                       taxes, ...
>
Your example falls short of meeting my requirement, as it does not
specify any obligation upon *individuals* to pay taxes. It merely
authorizes Congress to lay and collect taxes. It is completely
compatible with this clause that such taxes be limited to voluntary
contributions or based solely upon fees for service rendered.

        =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:58:11 GMT

ingraham@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (James Ingraham) writes:
>This is one place a "free market" system can't reall define things.  If you
>go to the FDA, and ask what constitutes as "lite," they will give you a 
>precise definition.  If you go and ask what constitutes "diet" or "sugar-free"
>or "low-sodium," they'll give you precise definitions, in percentages, 
>miligrams, or whatever.

If there is sufficient demand, "free market" *will* really define
things.  And if there is not sufficient demand for all the work that the
FDA does, should we be doing it?

>Unless some group of people gets together and decides
>what these terms mean for EVERY SINGLE PRODUCER, then the terms are 
>meangingless.

This is a strong statement; obviously wrong.  How did you ever buy a car
with every producer saying their's was "reliable," "fast," "energy
efficient," "comfortable," etc.?

Would having FDA-approved labels next to ones that were not FDA-approved
be meaningless if the ones that were FDA-approved said so right on the
label.  You could buy the FDA-approved one, while someone else might buy
another brand on the reputation of the producer, while another person
might buy a label approved by some other standard-setting institution.

>So whether or not people will lie, cheat, steal, or whatever
>in order to sell their product is irrelevant; SOMEBODY has to decide what those
>terms mean objectively, empiraclly, and universally.  The government is the 
>only institution I know of that could possibly do that, and even it's having a
>hard time.  There's no way you'd get General Mills to sit down with Kraft and
>work it out.

They don't have to get together.  How many competing companies follow
the same guidelines to become UL-listed, and why?

>And incidentally, it IS fraud to say something is "sugar free"
>when it's not; some people are affected very badly by sugar.  You can actually
>be alergic to caffine, and I'd hate to pick up a "caffine free!" soda only to
>discover it wasn't.

Since you appear to imply otherwise, let me say again that libertarians
believe fraud should be illegal, and producers held fully liable for
any fraud they commit.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,soc.history
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:15:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.164537.7160@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Yes, but England wouldn't have withstood as long as it did if the
>US hadn't taken sides long before Pearl Harbor.  Japan wouldn't
>have even bombed Pearl Harbor if it wasn't for the United States
>refusing to sell oil to it -- but that's "meddling" in the Libertarian
>view of the world.

A libertarian USA wouldn't prohibit selling oil to belligerents, but that
doesn't mean that individuals (or individual companies) couldn't decide not to
sell the oil.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2298 alt.politics.libertarian:1905
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Date: 16 Nov 1992 14:38:46 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu

rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:

| ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
|    All that is contained in the Constitution deals with powers and
|    restrictions given to and placed upon various levels and branches of
|    government. Show me even one place where the Constitution asserts that
|    there is any obligation on an individual.

| Article I, Section 8:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect
|                        taxes, ...

Well, yes.  But when that was written, it was a tax on the States, not
an obligation on any individual.

Article I, Section 2:  Representative and direct Taxes shall be
    apportioned among the several States which may be included within
    this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be
    determined by adding to the whole number of free Persons, including
    those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians
    not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article I, Section 9:  No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be
    laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before
    directed to be taken.

All this was changed by the Sixteenth, which for the first time
permitted the Federal government to tax individuals rather than
States or goods:

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
    from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the
    several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
--------------------
    At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done
    well or ill.  The suppression of unnnecessary offices, of useless
    establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal
    taxes.  These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors
    to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary
    vexation which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from
    reaching successively every article of produce and property.

                                        Thomas Jefferson
                                        Second Inaugural Address
From: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: free market
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:21:43 GMT
 <BxJnvw.E5I@beach.csulb.edu>
Organization: The Software Distillery
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 beta rel2

In article <BxJnvw.E5I@beach.csulb.edu>, Jeff Sicherman writes:

> In article <1992Nov9.105846.13999@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> >In article <BxFyIE.J7B@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

> >}  What if the transaction is harmful to third parties who are not participants
> >}in the transaction. This applies to all kinds of situations including victims
> >}of theft, victims of pollution, etc.
> >
> >That's easy.  They're coerced transactions.
> 
>   It's only easy if you're simple-minded enough to ignore the point. The
> effect on the third party is coerced but s/he is not party to the transaction
> itself, which may be uncoerced. The point is that regulation has a place in
> the so-called marketplace to avoid and or minimize these effects, whether
> intended or just irresponsible, on innocent third parties.

It is easy, but the transaction is not coerced.  The two parties making the
transaction are 'initiating force', in Libertarian terms, against the third
party.  This means the third party is within his rights to seek compensation
after the fact, or blocking them before the fact.

Libertarianisim is very simple by my understanding of it: People are responsible
for their own actions.  No one else, not the government, not another person,
no one.  Since they are responsible for themselves, it is up to them to make
decisions as to what is the 'right' thing to do. No one else has the right to
make that decision for them, not the government, not another person no one.

--

 |_o_o|\\
 |. o.| || The           Jay Denebeim
 | .  | ||  Software
 | o  | ||   Distillery
 |    |//        Address: UUCP:     duke!wolves!deepthot!jay
 ======                   Internet: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us
		 If the above bounces try: uunet.uu.net!oichq!deepthot!jay
                 BBS:(919)-460-7430      VOICE:(919)-460-6934
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2324 alt.politics.libertarian:1932
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:03:28 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1dutdgINNpje@transfer.stratus.com> <BxoA7x.AyK@encore.com>
  <1e8rmkINNngi@armory.centerline.com> <BxvBHE.1KK@encore.com>

 
Several beer producers are now lobbying the government to rescind the
regulation that *forbids* the labeling of alcohol content on beer
containers.


    Alan T. Furman         | Don't blame me -- I voted Libertarian
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2284 talk.politics.misc:60295 soc.history:9429 sci.econ:8677
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,soc.history,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:38:14 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov16.012905.21095@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.003227.20987@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>A libertarian USA wouldn't prohibit selling oil to belligerents, but that
>>>doesn't mean that individuals (or individual companies) couldn't decide not to
>>>sell the oil.
>>All it takes is one.
>
>This argument would suggest that there is no such thing as a boycott.  

I'm sure you understand the difference between a boycott of a seller
and a boycott of a buyer.  

And I'm sure you have an even better understanding of the difference
between a boycott on a retail level and a boycott of a fungible good
indistinguishable in quality on the wholesale level.  During a time of
depression when there's excess supply.

No matter how you slice it, a private embargo is not going to be as
effective as a government-enforced one.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:51:02 GMT

  >  I'm sure you understand the difference between a boycott of a seller
  >and a boycott of a buyer.

  A difference which makes no difference is no difference.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
From: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:08:49 GMT
 <9721@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Software Distillery
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 beta rel2

In article <9721@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, Richard J. Loether writes:

> Standards are great but the government is the wrong group to set them.  There
> are already product reviewing agencies doing the job for us and doing it well.  
> As long as nobody lies about sugar or caffiene content, as you mention above,
> who cares if a company puts a meaningless word on their label?  Besides,  you
> might just happen to LIKE  a brand pf pancake syrup that has 1.001 times the
> legal limit of sugar in it.

Also, who do you go to when buying things?  The government, or consumer reports?
If the government stopped doing it, organizations would take up the slack and
grade products.  The demand is there, and I'd be willing to bet that the 
private sector would do a much better job than the government does.

--

 |_o_o|\\
 |. o.| || The           Jay Denebeim
 | .  | ||  Software
 | o  | ||   Distillery
 |    |//        Address: UUCP:     duke!wolves!deepthot!jay
 ======                   Internet: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us
		 If the above bounces try: uunet.uu.net!oichq!deepthot!jay
                 BBS:(919)-460-7430      VOICE:(919)-460-6934
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2292 alt.politics.libertarian:1899
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:18:12 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <19921113103834ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
>There's nothing the least bit fraudulent about labeling food "lite" or
>low-sodium. These terms are entirely subjective. The only time that
>one can make a case for government interference in food labeling is if,
>for example, somebody claims he is selling you aspirin and what he's
>really pushing is arsenic powder. That would constitute fraud.

The whole idea is to provide objective definitions, so that decisions as
critical (to some) as the difference between asprin and arsenic can be
made in an informed manner.  Completeness of labelling, along the same
lines, can spell life or death for those with allergies.  I suppose you'd
also remove requirements for weights from packages along the same lines?

>All this nutritional labeling hoopla by the FDA is just another power
>grab by the government to exercise control over what we can choose to
>eat and drink.

Sounds like you're getting your conspiracy theories mixed up.  Prohibiting
unapproved drugs perhaps, but objective labelling standards in no way control
what we eat or drink.  If anything, they are the equivalent of legislating
another civil liberty: a right to know what you are purchasing.  That way
you can judge its possible effects on you.

Contrary to libertarian daydreams, corporate marketing thrives on consumer
ignorance.  Silent changes in ingredients, weights, prices, qualities, etc.
are part of a real conspiracy waged by corporations every day to exploit
reputation and brand loyalty without consumers knowing that they are purchasing
less for their dollar than they did formerly.

Labelling standards and terminology that provide real information to
customers is something NO industry has ever voluntarily provided because
producers and consumers are adversaries.

Mike Huben

"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot
face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths."
	Bertrand Russell in "Human Society in Ethics and Politics".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: kenney@tribe.b17d.ingr.com (David Kenney)
Subject: Re: Marrou/Lord vote totals
Reply-To: kenney@tribe.b17d.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:28:06 GMT

In article <Bxu271.94x@access.digex.com>, backpack@access.digex.com (Stuart Reges) writes:
|> 
|> The AP was also reporting the following vote totals for the various candidates
|> on 11/5:
|> [many deleted]
|>         Yiamouyiannis  2,316

Can someone tell me who this is?  About all I can say was that (s)he was not
on the ballot in Alabama or Ohio.

Thanks,
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kenney                                       kenney@tribe.b17d.ingr.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2303 alt.politics.libertarian:1910