HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jolhoeft@access.digex.com (Jeff Olhoeft)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Private product evaluation agencies (was: Might be a FAQ)
Date: 2 Jan 1993 03:41:58 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <Bzxt5t.B38@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland) writes:
>>In article <KNY=FC@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>>>This already *has* happened. Look at the Underwriters' Laboratories.
>>>Look at the Consumer's Union (and its publication, Consumer
>>>Reports). How many people base their decisions to buy a product
>>>based on what CU says about it in CR?
>
>>It's already happened for the sorts of products that these publications
>>cover.  The thread started out talking (among other things) about
>>things like drugs and medical treatments.  Can anyone think of any
>>problems that would occur if evaluation of medical treatments were
>>handled by such private companies?
>
>Time delays, difficulty in gathering information, and cost, to start
>with.  How many people really want to fork out large amounts of money
>to be told that a drug they took 5 years ago wasn't safe?  Why should
>the drug companies themselves pay up, when they'd be better off if
>nobody gathered enough statistics to sue them effectively?
>

Companies that sell products that UL tests do this already. Where I work
we don't sell a product that doesn't pass all the relevant UL standards,
and we don't send anything to UL that we aren't certain will pass. The
reason we go to the trouble is that there are enough customers who won't
buy a non-UL listed product to make this profitable. Also, if I recall
correctly, Consumer Reports is very big on UL listing.

There is no reason why this wouldn't work in the medical industry. Doctors
or patients could refuse to use any product that didn't recieve approval
from an appropriate agency. Not everyone would have to, just enough to make
up the cost of testing and a decent profit. I will add that UL testing is
nearly universal. I don't know the full scope of UL's tests, but try to find
an non-UL television or powertool. You will find some, but they are rare.
In medical products, where safety issues are much more important, I'd be
surprised if any company put out an untested product. Remember how Tylenol
7t}}}}sales plummeted after the poisoning incidents. 

>Just to diverge onto one of my bugbears a bit, the same problems
>apply to evaluating education...

Aren't there some organizations that rate colleges?

>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.

Jeff Olhoeft
jolhoeft@access.digex.com

































































Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: Might be a FAQ
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 17:18:37 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Dec25.204128.5929@eecs.nwu.edu> ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.235101.25162@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Stefan.M.Gorsch@dartmouth.edu (Stefan M. Gorsch) writes:
>>Essentially, then, the libertarian position seems to be caveat emptor.
>>While this may have been reasonable in the good ol' days of snake oil
>>and "patent medicine" it is clearly (to me, at least) inappropriate to
>>the current epoch. Today both entrepeneurs and mass marketers are far
>>too adept at manipulating the media to create consumer demand for a
>>variety of useless (or worse) products. In the case of medicine, the
>>average consumer (even the sophisticated consumer) clearly does not
>>have the resources to evaluate the safety and efficacy of
>>pharmaceutical health claims.
>
>This is certainly true.  Is it possible, however, that, in a
>Libertarian society, private evaluation companies would come into
>existence?  Average consumers could pick and choose among such
>evaluators, and base their judgements on their evaluator's reports.
>I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts about (1) whether this
>would actually happen or not, and (2) what problems might still exist
>if it did happen.

This already *has* happened. Look at the Underwriters' Laboratories.
Look at the Consumer's Union (and its publication, Consumer
Reports). How many people base their decisions to buy a product
based on what CU says about it in CR?

Problems? Not many. Some have suggested to me that if things
like food and drugs were deregulated and left to private
evaluators, the evaluations would be susceptible to bribery. However,
CU doesn't have this problem. CU knows that its success depends
on its spotless reputation. CU knows that if it accepted a bribe
to praise a substandard product, its reputation would suffer when
word got out about the product's actual quality. And it knows that
its reputation would be utterly destroyed if word ever got out that
it accepted a bribe.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold v. Oil: Backed Currency
Date: 22 Dec 1992 14:59:03 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Dec22.083532.17043@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>As I pointed out earlier, there are things called sales taxes and income taxes
>(and others) which interfere if you try converting your dollars to something
>such as gold when you store them.

I'm afraid the issue of taxes is quite a bit more complicated, and perhaps
irrelevant to the issue of gold.

First, most sales taxes are local retail taxes.  By purchasing gold interstate
(or perhaps by using a brokerage) you would avoid those taxes.  I strongly
doubt that taxes are paid on all purchases of commodities through brokers:
that would really cramp the volume of trade.

Second, you pay income taxes on all gains, be they interest on dollars
or profits from selling gold.  Thus, income taxes are no more a deterrent
to investing in gold than they are to investing in any other manner.
If anything, gold has an advantage over putting your dollars into interest-
bearing accounts: you are only taxed when you cash in, rather than annually.

In short, taxes are not more of a deterrent to converting your money to gold
than they are to making any other sort of investment.

Mike Huben

"I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked
at it the right way, did not become still more complicated."  Poul Anderson
From: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Might be a FAQ
Date: 23 Dec 1992 18:01:03 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg8.corp.sun.com


I'm not sure where he gets his statistics, but, Andre Marou states that
in lifetime of the FDA they have saved 15,000 and killed 250,000
through their policies.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:2876 alt.politics.marrou:2422 alt.politics.elections:24665 alt.president.clinton:1225
From: johnch@test22.sun.com (Where are the Prawns?)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:29:34 GMT
	<1992Dec14.223252.29959@sco.com> <1992Dec15.152444.10710@bnr.ca>
Organization: Impossible Missions Force
NNTP-Posting-Host: test22
In-reply-to: rbeckham@bnr.ca's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:24:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.152444.10710@bnr.ca> rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham) writes:

   Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
Path: smaug.West.Sun.COM!west.West.Sun.COM!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!hermes.chpc.utexas.edu!news.utdallas.edu!corpgate!crchh327!rbeckham
   From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
   Sender: news@bnr.ca (News on crchh327)
   Nntp-Posting-Host: crchh565
   Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
   References: <1992Dec09.151743.21060@bnr.ca> <bill.723953398@castor> <1992Dec14.223252.29959@sco.com>
   Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:24:44 GMT
   Lines: 72
   Xref: smaug.West.Sun.COM alt.politics.libertarian:1974 alt.politics.marrou:2372 alt.politics.elections:9603 alt.president.clinton:1413

   In article <1992Dec14.223252.29959@sco.com> erics@sco.COM (eric smith) writes:
   >
   >bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
   >

    The FAA assures certain safety standards for
   >air travel. 

   Do you think airlines would risk crashes with multi-million dollar planes?

They all do, just by flying them.  The question is, how willing are
they to risk their multi-million-dollar airplanes, of which most of
them have quite a few, and how willing am I to risk my life, of which
I have only one?  I'm not saying air travel isn't safe, but just
because someone owns a lot of valuable stuff, or works for a
corporation that does, doesn't necessarily mean he/she acts with what
I would call common sense.

   In fact, most of the major airlines have stricter standards than those
   set by the govt.

Can you be specific?  And which airlines have looser standards?  And
where does your information come from?

John C
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: LPUS
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 20:55:44 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

Anyone know how to unsubscribe from LPUS?

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Private product evaluation agencies (was: Might be a FAQ)
Date: 28 Dec 1992 04:38:25 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, Stefan.M.Gorsch@dartmouth.edu (Stefan M. Gorsch) says:

>
>One of the reasons I posted this question using pharmaceuticals as an
>example is that they present unique problems not found in the
>evaluation of consumer goods. In this case (let's say the testing of a
>drug purported to help help patients with ovarian cancer) field testing
>the drug entails the expenditure of literally millions of dollars to
>enroll patients and appropriate controls in statistically significant
>numbers; to perform appropriate blood work, radiographic testing,
>tissue biposies, etc.; to induce hospitals and physicians to
>participate in the studies, to pay the statisticians, pharmacologists
>and protocol managers and so on. This, of course, doesn't include the
>cost of necessary preclinical animal testing of safety and efficacy
>which is ethically (and currently, in a pre-libertarian world, legally)
>required before human trials.
>
>This is economically in an entirely different league from the type of
>testing currently conducted by private companies. Testing stereo
>equipment or automobiles has essentially no up-front cost by
>comparison. Granted, this is not an objection if thousands of people
>willingly pay tens of thousands of dollars to purchase one issue of
>"Clinical and Pathologic Drug Evaluations"; I doubt this is the case.
>Somehow, a private company must come up with, say, 10 million dollars
>for every drug it evaluates. As it currently stands, pharmaceutical
>companies must provide the requisite data. They finance their work
>through 1) sale of stock which in pharmaceuticals typically trade at
>about at a P/E ratio of about 20; 2) Marginally increasing the retail
>price of their drugs; 3) some of the basic research is financed through
>tax dollars. I don't see how an independent research firm will generate
>this revenue. Hence my original question, are there not fields which
>are best regulated by the government which alone has the power to
>compel private concerns to take actions they might not otherwise
>undertake? Is there a libertarian solution - I don't see it.
>
>
>stefan.m.gorsch@dartmouth.edu
>
I guess it seems to me that you have not demonstrated that there is a
problem which warrants this vast expenditure of resources.  It seems to
me that this is a necessary prerequisite before you can ask for a
libertarian solution...or any other sort of solution.

-- 
******************************************************************************
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: whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re:  Gold vs. Oil
Keywords: rice,  utility
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 15:52:19 GMT

I don't favor a gold standard,  but misstating the case against gold is no
help to the argument;  a gold standard would almost certainly be superior
to an oil standard.  Oil is simply too bulky to carry on transactions with,
And its storage is expensive;  there is also the matter of grade,  bringing
with  it the vast opportunity for fraud.

At the peak of their power in Cambodia,  the Khmers Rouge imposed a rice
standard.  This proved unworkable because it was impractical to carry around
enough rice to transact day-to-day business.

There is also the question of the monetary value of oil.  If it were the
currency standard,  then a component of its value would be monetary; i.e.,
its utility as money,  in addition to its utility as fuel,  would contribute
to its price;  making it more expensive to use.

It is incorrect to maintain that gold has no intrinsic value, while oil does.
Gold has utility as money,  and as a metal.  It's just that throughout much
of monetary history,  its utility as money has outweighed much of its utility
as an industrial metal.  Those desiring something with high industrial utility
as a currency standard might consider platinum,  or silver.

On the other hand,  if one likes oil,  why the petroleum variety?  Why not
salad oil?  Or cooking oil?

========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: Libertarians as villains
Organization: Sometimes
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:09:27 GMT

In article <1hd3n8INNpgo@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill Henley) writes:
}
}The Libertarian Party may not have made much headway in this
}year's election, but its ideas seem to be gradually penetrating
}public consciousness, judging by one slightly perverse signpost;
}I'm starting to see more cases where opponents of freedom find it
}worth the trouble to denounce libertarians and libertarianism by
}name.  (Used to be if libertarians were noticed at all they were
}regarded as harmless cranks.)  
}
}There was the column by George Will (the only newspaper columnist
}I know of to support the explicit repeal of part of the Bill of
}Rights) bashing Andre Marrou and yearning for the days of 
}"serious" third party candidates like Socialist Norman Thomas
}instead of the Libertarians.  An earlier posting on this board
}reported an anti-Libertarian political cartoon satirizing Marrou.
}
}And locally where I live, a letter to the editor in the Cleveland
}FREE TIMES, from a member of a mass-transit lobbying group, com-
}plains that "the naysayers among us, led by the know-it-all
}Libertarians, are trying to keep us chained to our cars."  
}(Obviously it would be much better for all the rest of us to be
}chained to the expanded mass-transit boondoggle he wants to
}build with our tax money.)
}
}Just out of curiosity, can anyone else report instances where
}libertarians and libertarian ideas, explicitly identified as
}such, have come in for criticism and attack in the mass media?
}
}-- 
}Bill Henley, Assistant Sysop, Cleveland Free-Net Science Fiction
}& Fantasy SIG (aa396)

In Delaware, prior to the election, there was one article in the Wilmington
News Journal which referred to us as either cranks or cooks (can't remember
exactly).  The outcome was that our Gubernatorial candidate was able to get
a rebuttal published.  The George Will column also enabled us to get in two
long letters to the editor which may not otherwise have been published.


-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:18:27 GMT

In article <WCS.92Dec30171935@rainier.ATT.COM> wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) writes:
>In article <XBV=ar+@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>   >If you mean gold-backed dollars, you are sadly mistaken, as history shows.
>   >When a government says a dollar is backed by 1/35th oz gold, it can claim
>   >a different quantity the next day.
>
>   That defeats the purpose of a gold standard. Presumably, the value of a
>   bill in gold would be printed on the bill (as in, "This bill is redeemable
>   at the Federal Reserve for 1/500th ounces of gold.")

the US changed the amount at least twice during the gold standard, although
one of the changes was quite minor, the other was not -- the standard was
originally $20 per ounce, not $35. so there is precedent for this concern.

>
>Let's see, how did it go?  Oh, yeah,
>	Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice ...

we've been fooled so many times i have personally lost count...

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:33:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.122153.29226@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>bright@unlv.edu (Paul Conte) writes:
>
>>IF this ever happened, and currency became a private enterprise, would
>>not the printing of more or less money STILL have an affect on the
>>value of what I own?  Even if we use ONLY gold coins, the discovery of
>>or non-discovery of gold will have an affect on the value of my
>>property.  A person should be able to choose what to use as a claim
>>for their property.  The government takes away that choice and
>>distorts the value of goods by monopolizing the press.
>
>Paul, et.al.,  Are you guys playing a game of how many useless ideas
>can we come up with ?
>
>Today you nearly demand that everybody be able to print money and that
>we should all carry hunks of gold around.  Okay let's take the big step
>backward and imagine that has happened.
>
>I'll buy your car for 50,000 T's (Tom dollars) will you sell it ?
>
>Are they traded in your neighborhood ?  Will my purchase of anything
>from your state require a dozen interim transactions to find a currency
>that both you and I agree are stable enough to purchase ?
>
>Will you demand hunks of gold be sent through the mail to pay for
>utility bills and mail order purchases ?  Will your company accept
>my $25 dollar chip of gold-colored metal in trade ?  Add some assaying
>equipment to your video store or gas station...
>
>Expect to wait in line at the bank each day you make deposits while
>they melt your money down into a single ingot and run a few tests on
>it.  Carry a hack saw to make change.
>
>Perhaps you'll permit the U.S. government to still mint the gold coins
>can't wait to see the pennies.

nice story, but not relevant, unfortunately.
i don't think anyone is suggesting that we carry around sticks of gold
and pencil sharpeners so we can shave off an apple's worth of gold
at the grocery store. what they are suggesting is that some trustworthy
agency let us deposit our gold and then trade IOU's (currency), knowing
that the gold exists and the agency is trustworthy.


>How we arrived at the situation we have now was through decade upon
>decade of streamlining based upon centuries of experience.  You honestly
>think that trading in paper money the world over is a quirk that could
>have been avoided if somebody had read these ill-conceived messages ?

no, they think that the garden of eden came with some forbidden fruit, and
our government is now making pies out of it. they think that systems
based on faith are only of value if that faith is not abused.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Subject: Racketeering?
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 06:52:40 GMT

The following is excerpted from the 1992 Libertarian Platform:

g.  the repeal  of anti-racketeering statutes  such as  the  Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which punish peaceful
behavior -- including  insider trading in securities, sale of sexually
explicit  material,  and   nonviolent  anti-abortion  protests  --  by
freezing assets of  the accused and  seizing assets of the  accused or
convicted.

My question: Exactly how is "racketeering" defined? What exactly does
the government declare to be illegal racketeering?

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Anti-Trust Laws
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:45:34 GMT

I was wondering what libertarians would think if Microsoft came under
FTC investigation for anti-trust violations, and what you think of
anti-trust laws in general.

Briefly, Microsoft operating system code includes "undocumented
features" which are known and used internally by Microsoft
applications developers, but are not publicized to outside developers.
Microsoft claims that this is because they do not want to support
these proprietary features.  Others claim that these features give
-- 
Milind S. Pandit			|
Operating Systems Engineer		| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	|