HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:04:02 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor

mrh@centerline.com (Huben the Authoritarian) saith:
>positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:
>>mrh@centerline.com (Huben the Authoritarian) writes:
>>>My parents were impoverished immigrants.  They, my sisters, and I could
>>>never have afforded our educations which propelled us into the middle class
>>>without substantial government loans and subsidies.  I defy you to point to
>>>a nation that creates and perpetuates a large middle class without such
>>>subsidies.
>>
>>So let me see if I understand this. Premise 1: Your parents were poor.
>>Premise 2: You needed an education to suceed. Conclusion: Joe Richguy
>>down the street should be compelled, at gunpoint, to pay for that
>>education. Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I'm missing the logical leap
>>there.
>
>Yes, quite obtuse, in addition to misrepresenting my thought.
>
>Nobody is compelling Joe Richguy to do anything: he has chosen to live in the
>USA and abide by our government.  Nobody is pointing a gun at him and
>commanding him to stay here where by mutual agreement we are taxed.

What "mutual agreement?" I was born here, now I'm told "be taxed or leave".
Where's the mutuality in that? If I point a gun at you and say, "Your money
or your life", will you give me your money by "mutual agreement"?

>Joe Richguy has now benefitted, since I have by now already repaid (through
>taxes on my greater earnings) those subsidies, and can now better share
>supporting the costs of society with him.

Sorry. An appealing theory that is not backed up by the facts. In the first
place, many, many people receiving government subsidies don't even come close
to repaying their loan from society. In the second place, though, forcing
someone to make a loan, even with complete confidence that it will be repaid,
is wrong. Suppose I hold the ol' gun to your head and take your money from
you. I then invest it in the soybean market, and a year from now, I give
you back double your money. Have I acted rightly?

-- 
__/\__  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
  \/    Finger for PGP key       | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:21:13 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
>Cliff Chaput <chaput@ils.nwu.edu> writes:

[in a post-tax world]
>> The difference would be that the government (the people) will no longer
>> have the power to subsidize those areas whose importance to society
>> transcend their free-market viability, like research (medical,
>> technological, etc.), education, transportation, law enforcement,
>> national defense, etc.

>Quite so.  And this is where your hard won knowledge of supply
>and demand can be put to profitable use.  When the government
>subsidizes any particular category of goods, the price of those
>goods is artificially inflated by the stimulated demand for them.

This looks like pseudo-economics.  The government is generally
involved in the production of such goods, as well as their
consumption.

>The deleterious effects of such a policy can easily be seen, for
>example, in the soaring costs of medical care.

And this is where it goes completely mad.  The US has more
expensive and less comprehensive medical care than countries
with greater governmental involvement.

>> As to the point of this thread, whether education should be subsidized, I
>> pose the following question: If the poor cannot afford an education, how
>> do you expect they can ever pull themselves out of poverty?

>Through hard work, thrift, and more hard work.  The same way
>that all worthwhile goals are attained.

Please, get in touch with reality.  A rich person has to expend
far less effort to get richer than a poor person must to get past
basic living requirements.  You may consider it just that the
latter has to work 60 hours a week to save very little, while the
former has to work maybe 20 hours a week to more than keep up
with inflation.  And you may consider it just that in times of
unemployment, a poor person loses all their savings to stay
alive, while a rich person probably doesn't lose their job at
all.  But putting on a starry-eyed, Horatio Alger look and
appealing to the virtues of hard work aren't convincing.  It
can be done, by a few; but it is not just.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: S&L
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:24:26 GMT

	I don't want to jump into the middle of this debate, Patrick seems
to be doing fine, but.... The FDIC did NOT insure S&L's.  They were under
much lower regulatory pressure than banks (hence the difference in names)
and thus had to pay a higher rate for insurance.  The department that
insured them was the FSLIC.  However when the FSLIC went broke Bush (in
his infinite wisdom <g>) told the FDIC to cover all outstanding claims.  When
the FDIC threateded to go under because of this huge burdon then Congress
put money directly into the FDIC.  
	Just wanted to correct some false history.

--JMB


Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3028 comp.org.eff.talk:8315 alt.amateur-comp:478 soc.culture.usa:9460 alt.activism:20056
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:19:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.025741.4810@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

>and of course inflation was pretty high during Carter's administration.

The major cause of inflation during Carter's term were the continuing
waves of price adjustments following the OPEC oil embargo and price- and
production-setting strategies. These began while Nixon was in office.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: morpheus <morpheus@entropy.mcds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 19:17:40 EST
Organization: No Pity For The Majority!

positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:

> >Here is a grossly simplifed example:  Joe Richguy wants my land, and I
> >refuse to sell.  So joe buys all of the land around my land and forbids me 
> >to trespass unless I sell.  Thus, _I_ am forced to sell my land or live in 
> >isolation.
> 
> Have someone airdrop you a large pogo stick.

What if it bounces off your land?


-- 
morpheus@entropy.mcds.com ("morph")    |    My life is for itself, and not a
Obsolete deity for hire.  Cheap.       |         spectacle.  - Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:36:17 GMT

In article <C0LzHv.2s5@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris  
Holt) writes:
> >From 1750 to the early 1900s, the U.S. experienced unprecedented  
economic
> >boom.  It absorbed millions of imigrants, and had the 'mechanism', if  
you
> >will, to give them a better life than they had at home, and give their
> >kids a better life than most any other people on the planet.  During  
this
> >time, there was minimal government intervention in markets, minimal
> >government intervention into private life, no federal reserve, no drug
> >prohibition, no charity beyond private charity, no income tax, no  
minimum
> >wage, no government schools, etc etc etc.
> 
> There was, of course, massive government intervention to provide
> cheap property (and the natural resources that go with it).
> 
Massive government intervention????
The government just let people settle land in the west. The only way  
government intervened was by rubber stampimng an already existing  
homesteading movement.
> >The literacy rate was high,
> >the poverty rate (*real* poverty, like homelessness and starvation) was
> >low, there was little crime, there were recessions but no depressions.
> 
> I suggest you recheck your history books.  No depressions?  What do
> you think panics were?  Little crime?  There was as much in the way
> of fraud and corruption in e.g. Grant's administration as there was
> in Harding's.  Homelessness and starvation?  High literacy?  It would
> be interesting to see your figures, anyway.
> 
I suggest you read some history books. The panics were generallly minor  
and localized and caused by government involvement. (Reading articles  
published by people of that time demonstrates this. William Legget a  
journalist who lived through many panics was one of many who exposed the  
governments role in the panics of the nineeth century) 
> >The closest thing ever to a libertarian state, and it was an  
unprecedented
> >success.  Not perfect, but so amizingly good that people all over the  
world
> >slaved there lives away in the hope of coming here one day.
> 
> Because of cheap land.
> 

See above about the limited role of the government is providing the cheap  
land and if cheap land was the only reason why were immigration rates so  
high AFTER the closing of the frontier when there was no more land open to  
homesteading? 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The World
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:26:44 GMT


From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
>I want a theory that does not ignore erratic human behavior also.  Other
>than an impossible Utopia, libertarianism comes closest to acknowledging
>this fact.

How do you know this? You mean based on your own simulation of the
future of history in your head? At the very least you can put some
uncertainty in your words like that you hope this is the case. You
certainly have nothing substantive to base this belief on other than
it seems to make sense to you.

How does this differ than those folks in 1917 who thought communism
seemed to make sense to them for the future of history? I know,
because you're right and they were wrong.

Well, I suspect you're wrong also. And just as the communists never
quite succeeded in putting bread on every table and creating economic
equality I suspect your plans are just as likely doomed to a similar
failure as bullies and thugs arise to betray your ideals. It's not
always exactly irrational behavior that is at issue, sometimes it is
also completely rational behavior (perhaps only rational within a
particular, selfish context) that is a problem. Some guy who made a
few million dumping toxic waste or raided people's savings etc may not
have done his planet any good, but he's living it up somewhere on the
money and probably thinks it all worked out pretty well! No doubt such
evility would be a huge fan of libertarianism, these guys slip thru
the currently regulated environment.

>And it is this
>recognition of erratic behavior that sets it apart from authoritarians,
>who think that those in power will defy the human nature by acting
>rationally for the best interest of the governed instead of
>"irrationally".  Libertarianism is the best theory for acknowledging
>this about human nature.

Other than when the electorate acts "irrationally" and imposes taxes
on themselves soas to pay for the common weal.

At that point libertarians want to stop them dead in their tracks.

I think in the end all you can affect is the process, not the results,
at least not much. If you let people vote etc then the process is fair
and we try to live with the results. Libertarianism sort of believes
the process is fair, it's not clear since they immediately revert to
ignoring the democratic process and talking about the govt as if they
were a dictatorship when it suits them, but the results of the process
don't seem to suit their personal tastes. Well, lah-dee-dah, welcome
to politics in a democratic society, win some, lose some, but that's
all you can really say in the end.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:02:58 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) writes:
> 	Theory question: Assume that the fetus is a human being with full
> liberties.  Suppose that the woman bearing the fetus did not wish 
> to be pregnant and does not wish to support it.  Does she have a 
> right to defend herself against the fetus's forcing her to support 
> it?

theory answer: nope. the fetus is not initiating force. if there is
"force" involved it is the result of her own (and her partner's) actions.
therefore, -she- is the one responsible for the situation, not the fetus,
and the responsibility for the consequences should be assigned as such.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`   "...my fellow neuronaughts were all linked up, plugged in, speed-   `,`
`,`  crazed, and increasing the bandwith of love." - carlsoje@umn.mr.edu  `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:11:47 GMT


In article <pa142548.674.726519019@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
 >Here is a grossly simplifed example:  Joe Richguy wants my land, and I 
 >refuse to sell.  So joe buys all of the land around my land and forbids me 
 >to trespass unless I sell.  Thus, _I_ am forced to sell my land or live in 
 >isolation.

 >How does libertarianism address this?  I can't seem to puzzle it through.

It would seem to me that you would have a claim under the common law 
tradition of Right-of-way.  Let's look at it from the point of view
of initiation of force.  If you have been peaceably traveling on and
maintaining(?) a road for a number of years with the common knowledge
and agreement of your neighbors and then a new land owner suddenly 
attempts to bar your passage even to the point of violence, it would
seem to me that it is he that is initiating force.

You could argue fairly conclusively that there was a defacto
right-of-way across the land in question at the time that the change
in ownership was transacted.  It would probably be he that would have
to suffer from poor foresight instead of you.  If Joe Richguy decides
to ignore the ruling of the court and perpetrate force upon you then
he should be expecting a visit from the police.  If Joe Richguy has
bought off the police then, let's not forget that all of us "little 
people" are armed in a libertarian society, and you can especially
expect help from other "land-locked" land owners.

On the other hand, it would probably be a good idea to get that or
some other right-of-way officially formalized in the public record.

-- 
Jim Albea                     albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com

"There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come."
                                      Victor Hugo
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: radio waves as public property
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:23:01 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <1ikr2eINNlpt@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.133237.25879@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>
>> 1)  the police have the right to listen to open air broadcasting.  You
>> forgo all privacy rights by broadcasting.  They would not have the right
>> to de-encrypt a broadcast without a warrent however, since you the owner
>> are no longer giving permission to the casual listener to listen (implied
>> by encrypting the message).
>
>Given that a radio receiver is in itself nothing more than a decryption
>device, and that a similar prosciption against people building their own
>radio receivers is obviously ludicrous, a certain amount of intellectual
>rigor is apparently missing from the chain of logic that leads to this
>asssertion.
>-- 
>
>cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
>OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
>

	Yes a radio reciever is sort of a decryption device, however when
one braodcasts a radio signal the intent is for the people at alarge to
listen to it; you have the owners consent.  When one broadcasts a encrpted
signal the intent is the opposite.  How doesn't it follow that the law
should be different?

--JMB
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore)
Subject: Re: Psephological journals
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:47:55 GMT

In article <1hq3s1INNh5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>
>In a previous article, jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman) says:
>
>>(...) My thesis was
>>that anti-abortion blocs shouldn't be written off entirely by 
>>libertarian campaigns, but rather subdivided and right-to-life
>>"moderates" appealed to on common grounds.
>>
>As a pro-life libertarian, I think this makes a lot of sense.  I support the
>LP and its candidates, despite the fact that the LP and most of its 
>candidates differ from me on that particular issue.  Pro-life people
>need to be encouraged to take a wider view, and realize that ther eis more 
>than just a single issue at stake. 
>
>By the same token (he said, cracking his knuckles), the "mainstream" of the
>LP needs to stop treating pro-life libertarians as second class citizens.
>How often have I heard people insisting that no "true" libertarian can
>be pro-life, and that the pro-life position is fundamentally inconsistent
>wiht the libertarian position?  Too often.  Obviously, I don't agree with
>this prejudice, and would appreciate a little more respect for my views.
>

As I understand Libertarians believe that laws should be only to prevent
force or fraud.  I don't see how pro-life would be inconsistent with
this.  Abortion imposes force on a fetus.  I think a fetus is a person.
I also thought the libertarian party demanded that people accept the 
consequences of their actions, so if a person does objectionable things
that his employer doesn't like, the employer can fire him.  What about
accepting responsibility for creating a life.  Really, I hate abortion
arguments, but realizing that the libertarian party fails to recognize
unborn persons as deserving of rights, and puts down those of us who do
makes me wonder if libertarians want freedom with responsibility or anarchy.

As far as appealing to me on common grounds and not writing me off completely,
fuck you.  I'm not a number or a group.  The things that seem appealing
about the common sense, simplistic, libertarian philosophy pale against 
the idiots that use one view of that philosophy as gospel to prove themselves
right and others, well, wrong, but maybe they'll be dumb enough to vote 
for us anyway.

Joe Moore
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:31:01 GMT

In article <90233@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>|In article <1993Jan11.134440.25280@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@marune.
acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:>|>In article <BZS.93Jan9194221@world.
std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:>|>>
>|>>So in summary what you're saying is a libertarian won't be an anarchy,
>|>>something we don't disagree on ... but instead will be a bloated lawyer's
>|>>paradise....
>|>
>|>Errrr, hate to jump in here, but are you saying we don't have a
>|>"bloated lawyer's paradise" under the current system?
>
>|Of course you're right, but those who insist on raving will conveniently
>|ignore such sensible comments and go right on raving.
>
>|Hans
>I don't know about you, but for me, it is not so much the legal system
>that I despise, but how it has been misused.
>Though I do feel that some form of loser pays rule, will correct many of
>the current flaws.

In classic Greece, you could bring suit for any reason.  But if the judge 
deemed your case frivolous, both you and the lawyer were EACH fined the 
local economic equivalent of $50,000.00 or so.  I like that idea.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism