HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Sponsor of first debat - Annheuser Busch
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:33:16 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO

gag65@cas.org () writes:
> I wrote:
>>  Yes and no.  August Busch, the chairman of Anheuseur-Busch is the sponsor
>>of the debate, not Anheuseur-Busch, Inc.
>>
>> And, before you go off flaming him or the company, please remember one thing.
>>He is sponsoring the debate only to help St. Louis.  Without him, the debate
>>would have been held (sans Andre Marrou) in some other city.  He was not
>>involved with the decisions on who to invite, etc.
>>
>>  If you want to go overboard and boycott A-B products, why not boycott
>>Washington Univ. as well, since we have as much to do (ie. NOTHING !) as
>>A-B did in preventing, or allowing Marrou to speak on Sunday.
>>
>
>While I believe that boycott is a legitimate consumer tool in a free society,
>I have a tendency to agree with you that a boycott here may be a bit rash.  But I
>do think it is legitimate to inform both A-B and Washington University about
>Libertarian concerns. They are both in a position to _influence_ the powers that
>be (albeit in a limited way), and we should make them aware of the situation.
>
>By the way, I also heard that Miller will also be sponsoring the debates.
>Beer wars, anyone?
>
    Washington University, at least, does know about Andrew Marrou, since he
will be speaking here on Sunday from 1-3 (or 2-4 PM -- 1-3 is reserved, but
Marrou apparently can't be here until 2, but nothing is official, anyway).

    At the request of the Marrou campaign, a student group known as 
Students for Political Learning, Understanding and Teaching (SPLUT, and yes
they go by that name !) have agreed to host them.

Greg


-- 
*******************************************************************************
Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: The Electoral College
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:36:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.162212.6794@cirrus.com> lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis) writes:
>Jeff Andle said:

			......................

>Jeff brought up an issue that causes me to pose yet another question
>that I hope the net can answer.What was the reasoning behind the
>Electoral College?   I believe the Federalist Papers address this question,
>but alas, I do not have a copy.  

The idea of the Electoral College was that the President was not to be chosen
directly, but indirectly by delegates.  The original version had each Elector
voting for two candidates, with the one with the largest number of votes 
becoming President, and the second larges Vice President.  The Presidency,
and even the Senate, were considered not to be directly chosen by the people.

This worked well for the first two elections, Washington getting all the votes.
In the third election, the President and Vice President were political enemies.
In the fourth election, the Republican (current Democratic?) electors all voted
for Jefferson and Burr, and so it was changed to separate voting for President
and Vice President.  
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:38:11 GMT
 <7054@transfer.stratus.com> <1ave8nINN1hi@armory.centerline.com> <carlp.718490910@frigg>

carlp@frigg.isc-br.com (Carl Paukstis) writes:

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

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

No, not at all.  After the subsidized start-up costs, the cost to society
(i.e. the taxpayers) is nill.  Mike is right on, here. For large-scale goods,
the only people that lose in the long run are owners of the monopoly.
The price is kept down by the competition there-after.
And, as Mike wrote, the savings to consumers can reasonably enter the
government's calculation, while private enterprise would only consider
its own profit.  And this savings can greatly exceed the one-time subsidization

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

True.  Anyone who didn't use the product would be subsidizing the
start-up costs for the competition.

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

Repeat - in the model given there is NO marginal cost to taxpayers for
each additional item produced.  And the competition put in place keeps
the prices below the monopoly price.

>BTW - if the product is so good for "society", why isn't there more
>economic incentive to enter the market?  Inelastic demand?  Then how
>will competition lower the price?  Or maybe the entrenched monopoly
>producer is selling at a low profit, insufficient to attract
>competitors.  NOW how is competition going to lower the price?  By
>driving the non-subsidized producer into price-cutting bankruptcy?

See previous posts for a thorough exposition of how a profit margin can be
high and yet invite no market competition.

>--
>Carl Paukstis, RRR&RSG           | "Good men must not obey the laws too well"
> ISC-Bunker Ramo / Spokane, WA   |    -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
> Phone: +1 509 927-5439          |  
> Mail: carlp@frigg.isc-br.com    |  My employer accepts no responsibility...
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: gff%Rational.COM (Geoff Fitch)
Subject: Re: Prominent Libertarians (was Re: An answer to one of David Sill's)
Organization: Rational
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:57:16 GMT

I belive Clint Eastwood recently refered to himself as a libertairian.

The real problem is that 99% of the world has never heard of the word 
"libertarian" or the LP. But many hold beliefs that we would classify
as libertairian. The study/book ("Beyond Liberal and Conservative"?) 
that analyzed opinion along the famous (among libertarians) economic
and social freedom scales showed that around 25% of the populace is
libertarian leaning (i.e. at least highly qualified prospects for
libertarianism).

So I don't really care if you can come up with a list of five or
ten or twenty odd balls you will call themselves libertarians. Why
aren't there hundreds or thousands when we know that the principles
of libertarianism are so widely held?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: meier@ee.umanitoba.ca (Martin Meier)
Subject: Libertarian platform: Recipe for disaster.
Organization: Elect & Comp Engineering, U of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba,Canada
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:00:29 GMT

I think I just read the platform from the LP. I ftp'ed it from
think.com.  It is the file /pub/libernet/LP/libertarian-platform-1992.Z

Is this REALLY what the LP proposes to do, or is this a prank file? I
can't belive anyone would try to implement this plan.

If I where a foreign government trying to destroy the USA, I wouldn't
attack with armies, I'd give many millions to fund the LP in federal
elections.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:43:49 GMT
 <parvin1.718668748@husc11> <qsuheik@zola.esd.sgi.com> <parvin1.718685939@husc11> <r0c07nc@zola.esd.sgi.com>

thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:


>In article <parvin1.718685939@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu writes:


>> No, you're not getting the main idea here.  What he and I showed was that
>> such a "high-profit" situation is indeed an equilibrium.

>No, he did not.  Here's the graph.


>10 +
>   |\
> 8 + \
>   |  \
> 6 +---A
>   |   |\
> 4 +   | \
>   |   |  \
> 2 +---|---B-- cost of manufacture
>   |   |   |\
> 0 +-+-+-+-+-+
>   0 2 4 6 8 10

>What his example showed is that if 'A' is your initial condition, and you
>compare it with 'B,' then it is obvious that as far as consumers are
>concerned, B is better.  The implication is that since there are no
>profits to be made at B, that the market will never do it and therefore
>government is justified in doing it.

No, that is not the implication.  There can be a range above B for which
there is no profit to be made, when start-up costs are taken into consideration.

It would be pure folly to expect a company to function without any profit,
even if its start-up costs were subsidized.

>What this presentation (as well as you) ignore, and what I've been trying
>to say all along, is that there *is* profit to be made anywhere between A
>and B.  So although no one is going to start a company at B, they will
>start it between A and B and the subsequent competition for market-share
>after that will bring the price as close to B as market uncertainties
>will allow.

No; these are the marginal costs that you are looking at.  It's quite possible
that there is no profit to be made between A and B when the start-up costs
are taken into account.  Firm A is not concerned with these costs.  Any
firm wishing to compete is.  Your diagram ignores the cost of entry.
There is some point C, C>B, at which there is exactly zero
real potential profit for an entering firm.  Subsidizing start-up costs can
allow both firms to operate profitably below this barrier C.
And this cost is more than compensated for in consumer savings.

>'A' is *not* an equilibrium!  Even with contrived examples given 'ideal'
>conditions and a benevolent government, intervention is not justified.

If A <= C, then A most certainly is a static point, or an equilibrium.
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson)
Subject: Re: Common interests of businesses
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:48:43 GMT

In article <1aqfm8INNik@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>You ignore the fact that it is impossible to get a major loan of any sort
>without signing a release for a full credit history.
>
>Do you think for a minute that employers wouldn't use the services of a
>"work history" bureau?  But wait!  There's more!  Under libertaria, there
>would be no regulation: anything could go into your work records, and they
>wouldn't have to show them to you.  Imagine if that happend with your
>credit reports: opinions of lenders on top of the 25% (or higher) average
>error rate, and no government mandated recourse to get them corrected?

	You are presuming common facts about all libertarians not in
evidence; namely, that we all think that the spreading of false news is
not a matter in which the government may act.

>Better bend over and let your manager b*tt-f*ck you rather then allow him
>to give you a bad review, which every potential employer will be able to
>read.  Privacy isn't property in libertaria.

>What libertarians never mention is that companies are also competing to
>extract as much from their employees as possible.  Government (by labor laws)
>helps standardize the amount of work, thus shifting the competitive load
>off the employees and onto the products.  These laws were enacted to
>standardize things like the 8 hour workday, to end child labor, to create
>humane factory conditions, etc.
>
>Companies have LOTS in common: they have employees.  They want the same
>thing out of their employees: as much work for as little money as possible.
>Name some nations without labor laws, and tell me about their idyllic
>working conditions.
>
>Mike Huben

	It's a shame the laws don't work:  they attempt to standardize the
productivity when nothing in the nature of individuals requires them to.

-- 
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: vandal@leland.Stanford.EDU (Levan Frederick Hiemke)
Subject: RICHARD BODDIE, Lib. for US Senate, at Stanford 10/14
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba,su
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 00:39:21 GMT

This appeared in the Monday, 10/12, Stanford Daily...

============================================================
Is the First Amendment Politically Correct?
	
Richard Boddie, Libertarian for U.S. Senate, will speak on:
	-Affirmative Action
	-The War on Drugs
	-The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
	-Illegal Search and Seizures
	-The Internal Revenue Service

Wednesday, October 14, 7pm, Tressider/Oak East

Sponsored by Stanford Libertarians
==============================================================

(Sorry I can't offer directions... I don't know the street names.  I can 
tell you that Tressider is the student center and that it is located near
the center of campus.  I believe Oak East is a room on the 2nd floor.
Sorry I can't be of more help -- hard to believe I studied at Stanford
for a year, huh?!?!)

-Van

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:14:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.044545.2212@leland.Stanford.EDU> adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai) writes:
>In article <7208@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar) writes:
>
>ad: We all know why the U.S. auto industry is losing: they sat on their
>    asses and built shitty cars. Hurray for the japanesse: I love my
>    Toyota. Also I very happy to be "dumped on", I get products
>    very cheap. I believe the U.S. is losing shares all these industries, not
>    because of industrial policies of other nations, but because it is
>    natural in a free market.

I've wondered whether the decline in quality of US cars might be a result
of anti-trust--I think there was a decade or more when US companies would
have been punished for getting too large a market share. (Translation:
producing a car than was too popular.)

This could have had serious effects on the attitudes and procedures at
the companies. Does anyone know if this is a reasonable theory?

I realize that the Big Three were also protected from foreign competition
at the time.

                               Nancy Lebovitz
                               calligraphic button catalogue available
                                  by email   (170K)
                               nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu

The trouble with natural monopolies is that it's so much trouble to keep
them going artificially.

>
>   Although there is degree of government intervention in all western contries,
>   the market is still very much alive. The U.S. is losing these indusrties
>   because it no longer is the sole producer as it was after WWII. I belive
>   that the U.S. produced some outrageous portion of the World G.N.P. after
>   WWII(like 60-70%); the other contries were wiped out. Now that they have
>   caught up, its natural that they produce their share of the world G.N.P. It    only where markets didn't exist like the USSR that things went to shit.
>
>   Secondly, the other contries don't squander 300 billion a year in defense
>   either.Put that back in the civilian economy and seewhat happens.Just think
>   of all those bright engineering building tvs and ICs... makes me cry
>   sometimes.
>
>   adesai@leland.stanford.edu
>
>
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: how do I sign up?
Date: 14 Oct 1992 22:49:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


All of the money goes to the party.  A goodly fraction, as I 
understand it, goes to defray costs associated with publishing
the Libertarian Party News, a monthly newsletter which is sent
to each member.  I dunno if you can join without paying the
$25.  I suggest you call 800 682 1776. The recording there will
give you the number to call to talk to a live person, who can
probably answer these questions for you.
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Santa Clara County:  Measure A
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:58:34 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Originator: lando@tango

The Proponents of Measure A have sent out a nice sized
multicolored flyer telling me why I should vote for measure
A.  For those not aware of Measure A, its purpose is to
extend a 1/2 cent sales tax that was started several years
ago.  The basic thrust is to:

* sychronize traffic lights along express ways (how much can THAT cost!!???)
* create more light rail lines
* establish a route to BART in Alameda County
* improve turnoffs and the like.
* passage of this fund will help get matching funds from the Federal Government.
* reduce congestion and pollution

My ballot list also came in the mail.  It contained the arguments pro and
con.   People such as David Packard were listed in the pro-arguments.
Others against the measure were people on the Highway 85 committee and
a member of the Libertarian Party of Santa Clara. I believe his name is
John Peterson.

Pro and con arguments limited to only one page are not sufficient.   If
John Peterson reads this group, or anyone who knows him, please expound
upon some of the arguments against.

If there is anyone else out there who was involved in getting Measure A
on the ballot, please expound upon your reasons why.

Lastly, the people of Santa Clara, I'd like to know why you are for or
against this measure.  I'm trying to weigh all the pros and cons.  I'm
likely to vote _against_ the measure because of the low ridership of
the bus and light-rail system, but I want to hear both sides discuss
it in an open forum.
-- 
"Read my lips, 'No more statism.'"  - George Bush, NOT!
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:11:56 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA




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

> >It seems that all you have done is, through taxation, spread the loss
> >over a large number of people, including a number of people who do not 
> >ever partake of the good or service that they are subsidizing.  So those
> >who partake of the product pay more than the government-proposed market
> >price of it (when you add in their taxes), but less than the free-market
> >price; and the latter difference is covered by payments from taxpayers
> >who don't use the product at all, and so receive nothing for their taxes.

In article <parvin1.718668748@husc11>, parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu writes:

> You're failing to take into account the benefits of a lower price level
> to society.  See Atit Desai's post 1992Oct9.015404.26954@leland.Stanford.EDU
> for a quite clear trivial example.  He debunks it, and expresses many 
> real-world doubts about it.  But it is not nearly as trivial as you make it
> out to be.  At least in theory, such subsidization CAN create a net benefit
> for society.

You (and apparently Desai (although he (?) doesn't defend government
intervention) misunderstand the implications of his example.  As I've
already pointed out, all his example shows is that the closer you get to
theoretical 'ideal' conditions, the less incentive there is in the form
of profit to get closer.  His presentation was misleading in that it
contrasted an arbitrary position on the price/quantity curve with the
boundary condition, ignoring market conditions in between that show how
the market is encouraged toward (but never reaching) the theoretical
ideal.

More importantly, the example shows that the government cannot better the
market by moving production beyond the point where profits are made
because the costs of production exceed the value to consumers (which
is exactly contrary to to your claim).

thant
From: adams@liszt.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz)
Subject: commission on presidential debates
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:17:46 GMT

I called the Commission on Presidential Debates ( (202)-872-1020, ask for Denise).
I forgot to ask for Denise but I asked for them to invite Marrou to the Debate and,
short of that, to allow him a five minute presentation since is on the ballot in all
fifty states.

Let these people know that there are people who support Marrou.

-Adam
From: bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Bush challenges Clinton to debate
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:27:44 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <1992Oct1.143730.9075@infonode.ingr.com>, lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com (Les Bartel) writes:
|> OK, now Bush has challenged Clinton to a debate.  Is our favorite
|> candidate going to invite himself to that debate?  Bush welcomed
|> Perot to join the debate if he decided to run for pres.  I would
|> very much like to see these candidates discuss their solutions
|> to our current problems together.  

But you will note that Andre Marrou was not invited to join in.

Why is everyone so afraid of the Libertarian Party??  They get no
mention in the newspapers, they get no mention on TV or Radio.  
What makes the Libertarian Party so fearsome that even people who 
think Perot is the biggest threat to personal freedom to ever come 
along are afraid to even admit it's existance.

Let's get all the candidates who are on the ballot in all 50 states
on the podium together and see how things really stack up.  

If the Libertarians really have nothing to offer, then why be afraid
of them??

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in Oregon
Summary: Libertarian Party fighting fascists in Oregon
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 11:00:58 GMT

In article <BvMsCB.L4x@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson) writes:
>	To the Oregonians reading this newsgroup, what are you doing to
>oppose Measure 9?
>

Measure 9 is an ammendment to the Oregon Constitution that would label
gays as "abnormal and perverted" along with pedophiles etc., require
teaching of homosexuality as a perverted lifestyle in public schools,
a require systematic discrimination against gays for several kinds of 
government jobs.  It is an amazingly fascist piece of legislation, you'd 
have to read it to beleive it.  At a recent meeting Oregon LPer's 
unanimously voted to oppose Measure 9.  Many LP'ers have donated time 
and/or money to the No-On-9 campaign, and many Oregon LP candidates are 
running on a platform of No-On-9.  Interestingly, No-On-9's symbol is the 
same as the LP's: the statue of liberty.  If you'd like to volunteer in the 
anti-9 campaign, come on down to Powell's Books on Burnside in downtown 
Portland and ask the clerks where you can volunteer.



-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian