HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: FXD/Telerate, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:06:25 GMT

baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>Personally, I think the Libertarian Party is a joke.  If they were serious
>about getting anything done, they would (1) work within the Republican
>Party, and (2) give up their extremist rhetoric.

1) What makes you think they have much in common? The Republicans like big
government, an interventionist foreign policy, the war on drugs, and myriad
other government interventions into people's lives. The differences are
profound.

2) The "extremist rhetoric" is merely the logical extension of a few basic
principles. As time goes on, it will seem less extreme. Already bits and
pieces of the platform are being co-opted by the mainstream parties. More
will follow.

>As someone once said, the Republican Party is
>a big tent, so another sideshow or a few more clowns wouldn't hurt.

There are already a couple of libertarian-minded groups within the Republican
Party. For people who are "pragmatic", that is, willing to give up some of
their principles today in order to get elected today. This is useful and
necessary, but it's not what the Libertarian Party is all about.

Glen Raphael
raphael@fx.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18018 ca.politics:3447 ba.politics:2649 alt.politics.homosexuality:2055
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:21:45 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <HmF6iB1w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:

>I certainly will not teach the TRASH certain elements of society
>are accepting because they are afraid to stand for the truth.


Physician, Heal Thyself.


FWA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17569 alt.politics.elections:656 misc.taxes:2184 alt.society.civil-liberty:3334
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:57:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: qualcom.rdippold.702853038
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

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

>In article <PMETZGER.92Apr6184039@snark.shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>   We are also pro choice, because we support the right of
>   individuals to decide whether or not their wombs are to be put to use
>   or not, and to decide whether or not to be a parent.

>Not exactly true; the Libertarian party is still split on this issue.
>I am Libertarian and pro-life because I oppose the initiation of force
>against an unborn child to achieve social goals.  I recognize that the
>unborn child has a right to life.  These are my opinions only and

Yes, this is one place where the LP doesn't have a single answer,
because it all comes down to the question of what the fetus is, the
same problem at the root of all pro-life / pro-choice conflicts.  You
can argue all you want, but it comes down to that at the base.

I would think, however, that libertarians would agree that for or
against abortions, the government shouldn't be paying for them.
-- 
The plural of spouse is spice.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18486 alt.individualism:2477 sci.econ:3812 misc.legal:9376 alt.discrimination:1648
From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ,misc.legal,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:08:31 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <kranzer.703441418@adx.adelphi.edu> kranzer@adx.adelphi.edu (Herbert C. Kranzer) writes:

>Although I do not consider myself a Libertarian, I cannot resist posting
>yet another example of this mindless state-inspired credentialism.
>
>In my town, the local water-supply district requires an annual
>inspection of all automatic lawn-sprinkler systems in order to make sure
>that chemicals sprayed on the lawn cannot back up into the tap water
>inside the house.  This inspection consists of visually checking two
>valves in the basement for possible leaks.  Any homeowner should be
>capable of doing this for him/herself, and has a very obvious interest
>in doing so, namely the health of his/her family.  However, the state in
>its wisdom has decreed that the inspection must be performed by a
>licensed inspector who has completed a special "training program".
>Of course, these inspectors, with their state-imposed monopoly, charge
>fifty bucks for the "service" and make you wait around all day to let
>them in.
>
>I realize that this is only a minor annoyance compared with Lee's
>haircut story, but it does involve an unnecessary state-mandated intrusion 
>into a private home.  Who needs it?

Regrettably, many people will not inspect their own anti-backup valves, and
many of them will not realize the significance of anything that they
observe.  This may seem incredibly stupid to you, but remember that most
Americans don't know how a thermostat works.

So that's their problem, you say?  When chemicals back up into the house
water, they can also back up into the water mains and poison the neighbors.
The only way to prevent this would be the installation of anti-backup valves
on every individual house line, at enormous capital and continuing cost.

That much said, $50/inspection is way too high, and they could be nicer
about making and keeping appointments.  I suspect that there is a hidden
agenda: the discouragement of in-lawn sprinkling systems and private pools.
-- 
Mark A. Fulk				Computer Science Department
fulk@cs.rochester.edu			University of Rochester
Omit needless words -- Strunk		Rochester, NY  14627
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Even the Pro-socialized Medicine Types Hate It
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:06:48 GMT

gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>
>>>in the Eastern bloc -- and not that I'd ever expect them to travel to
>>>Canada, France and Germany either (-;).
>>
>>Go fuck yourself. :)
>>-- 

>Wow, what a flash of oratorial brilliance!  I never thought I'd see
>the day ... (-;

Just makming a sarcastic point about the use of the smiley to sanitize
otherwise offensive statements.  I hd expected it to go over your
head, but not that far.
-- 
"If you don't find it in the index, look very carefully through the
 entire catalogue."  -- "Consumer's Guide", Sears, Roebuck and Co. (1897)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17159 alt.activism:7326
From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,misc.legal
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes piece on the Forfeiture Law
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:41:20 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu

root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

| Here in Spokane, Washington, we have a Gypsy community. They've long been
| held suspect of a variety of things --not for fact, but for their ethnic
| heritage.

| Six years ago, the police made a raid (with a bogus search warrant) and
| took from the family homes cash and jewelry with an estimated value of a
| quarter of a million dollars. In the trials that followed, every charge
| againt the families was found to be false. The city had planned to keep
| the items taken, on the "ill-gotten gains" doctrine, but had to give it
| all back. They were unable to.

| The gypsy families just won a 40 MILLION dollar lawsuit against the city
| of Spokane. The city is on the run, it's self insured, and has no money
| in the coffers. A federal judge is going to rule soon on what the total
| actual award should be (amended from the jury award) and what kind of 
| payment program should be instituted.

This is the happiest thing I've read in a long time.

| Aside from saying "higher taxes bud" or some of the other sarcasm from
| people, what ARE the legal ramifications of this? Can the city elect
| not to pay judgements against it? Is it possible to get an order of
| garnisheement or seize city property in the same way that an individual
| or a business can have their debt prosecuted? 

About 18 months ago, a judge in St. Clair County awarded the Municipal
Building of East St. Louis, plus 220 acres of city land, to a man who
was owed $4 million by the city ($47 million in debt).  It can happen.

| What about the way that cities and counties "self insure" themselves,
| expecting to pay out of funds that don't exist? Can they be further
| litigated against for for negligence, malfeasance, or dereliction?

I've thought for some time that the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations) statutes might be turned against government
bodies themselves.  To my understanding, these statutes include
provisions for the suit, in civil court, of "corrupt" or "racketeering"
organizations for triple damages.  Clearly, there is no organization more
corrupt or racketeering than the government (in its many bodies).

Can't those who have been wronged by the government (e.g., seizure without
conviction) sue for _triple_ damages, rather than just to get their money
or car back? 

Or has Congress thoughtfully exempted government bodies in the writing of
the law.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: US Election Results (Regional Ministers)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:46:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.105536.927@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <01GIP4QR5700000B19@utarlg.uta.edu>, B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) hallucinates:
>> 
>>        ===   Election Results for New Regional Ministers   ===
>> 
>>                Great
>>                Lakes          
>>                -----------    
>>                Pat            
>>                Schroeder      
>
>	Ack!  Never!

Really, how'd she get over into this neck of the woods?  I thought she
was from Colorado.  
-- 
Ted Frank          + "He wanted to be the car rather than the thimble or the
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  hat."  -- District attorney explaining Marc Cienkowski's
U o' C Law Skool   +  murder with bow and arrow of Michael Klucznik in
Chi, IL 60637      +  Doylestown Borough, PA over a game of Monopoly.
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Elections in the Mother Country ...
Date: 10 Apr 1992 01:58:29 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

Well, looks like the Tories are going to hang on after all.
Major and the Conservatives appear poised to make history (according to
the BBC and ITN) by winning for the fourth consecutive time, albeit
with a plurality or a razor-thin majority. Apparently, the Tories are
predicted to win anywhere between 315 and 329 of the 326 seats that they
need in the House of Commons to form the Govt. There is also not much
chance of a Labour-Liberal coalition, since they do not have the combined
strength to form the Govt., an  indication, in my opinion, that the
Bolshevik Revolution is finally OVER (:-:). This is quite an astounding
result, given that the Brits are still in the grip of a recession. According
to the ITN report on CNN, the chief reason that the Conservatives are doing so
well, is that most people do not believe that Major is to be blamed for the
recession; and that a Labour Govt. will probably be no better at handling the
economy.

A harbinger of things to come in the fall in this old colony? Is a Democrat ==
Labour; Perot == Liberal; Bush == Conservative (no matter how laughable that
sounds) equation a valid comparison? Let the debate/flames begin.

-srinivas
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Class Warfare is STUPID: (Was: : Where Have All the Liberals Gone?)
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:49:02 GMT

In article <167C3D822.KENH@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu>, kenh@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Ken Hudson) writes:
} In article <15146@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
} >} 3) with no police protection
} >} while in transit to assure that muggers don't grab the bucks you were
} >} going to spend;
} >
} >The police can't do that anyway.  If muggers want to steal my money, the
} >police can't do anything about it until after the crime has already been
} >committed.
}  
} I've never heard of a policeman casually observing a crime in progress
} and waiting until you go to the station and fill out a form before they
} move into action...Where do you dwell, anyway?  Someplace founded by
} Lewis Carrol?

Think of all the people who have ever been mugged.  If what you say is true,
then the police haven't been doing their jobs.

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in several cases (like Warren vs District of
Columbia) that the police are not obligated to provide personal protection.
If they see mugging in progress, they can stop it.  But they are not required
to follow people around to make sure they are never mugged.

} >} 4) with no bucks printed by a treasury (what are you
} >} going to do? carry around pure gold?);
} >
} >While there are costs associated with printing currency, to imply that
} >these costs are proportional (let alone progressive) to their amount
} >is nonsense.  It costs no more to print a $100 bill than it does to print
} >a $1 bill.
}  
} Why should costs be proportional?  Does not follow...does not compute...
} does not make sense.  There is a cost to running a monetary system
} period.

Of course.  But the notion that we must have a progressive income tax
to pay for it is nonsense, since these costs are not progressive.

} >Besides, the cost of that money has already been paid for -- government
} >has no further claim on it.
}  
} Whah????  Take a look at the expense line for the Treasury Department?
} It is not being budgeted zero dollars, and its expenses haven't slowed
} one bit.  Like roadways, those paper bills are wearing out
} and being replaced in circulation every day...

Minor quibble:  The money comes from the Federal Reserve -- not the Treasury
Department.

The money we use to purchase things has already been paid for by the banks
that got it from the Federal Reserve.  These banks cover the costs by
charging things like interest and user fees, which are paid for by people
and businesses who use the banks.  The businesses cover their costs by
including them in the prices of the things we purchase.  We should not have
to pay for that money *again* with a tax.
--
David Olson ...!att!druwa!dlo
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: Re: Tax zap cap
Date: 7 Apr 92 10:07:15 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Apr7.040152.2734@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>>
>>Therefore any particular individual who began
>>to have a large amount of resources on hand for personal pleasure would
>>basically be detrimental to society.
>
>Huh? Why?

Lets ask, what is the point of society?  Glancing at our constitution, each
person has the right to self-determinancy.  That is, each person has the
freedom to look for their own value and happiness!

If one person has very little or nothing, they are being denied this right.
Seeking value and happiness requires some sort of flexibility and options.
The absence of options is a destruction of rights.

So now we might rephrase what our goal is: providing the maximum of freedom
to each and every individual.  This is NOT giving the same to every person.
That is communism, and it destroys freedoms left and right.  However, there
is an equilibrium point in between "Atlas Shrugged" and Marx.

One individual recieving a huge amount, with others having no freedom at all
is detrimental to society.


>>So why don't we cap incomes at some
>>very high number, say 1,000,000 dollars a year.
>
>Why would (say) Michael Jackson want to keep working so hard if he didn't
>get paid for it?  

I HOPE NOT!!! Please, get rid of him.

>>  Or the cap could be a straight one, with the govt taking anything more
>>than that in taxes.  The extra money would be kept in the corporation, to
>>be spent on whatever (research and development, which could burn that
>>cash fast)
>
>But the purpose of R&D is to increase your future profits.  What good is
>this if you can never access these profits?

As you yourself pointed out, why would anyone work hard if they could not
get more money?  Well, there is the expectation of future profit which
they still can get.
From: chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Iran Hostage Rescue / Perot
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:53:23 GMT
Reply-To: chf0@gte.com
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA

In article <1180010@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com>, sheneman@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Jerry Sheneman) writes:
|> Does anyone know the title of the movie that was made about the
|> hostage rescue mission to Iran that was organized by Perot?
|> Was a book also written about this or just a movie?

The book (by Ken Follett) was called "On Wings of Eagles" and I think
the movie had the same title.  The movie starred Burt Lancaster as
Col. Simon.

|> Thanks,
|> Jerry S.

-- 
============================================================
Curt Fennell    [   "Get DOWN off that cross, honey!       ]
chf0@gte.com	[    Somebody needs the wood!"             ]
============================================================
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: Re: more info on Perot: 1st article of 2
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:54:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.053421.1234@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <82A602f5c8ss00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>>
>>[Perot on] Deregulation of airlines:
>>
>>  "A sad situation brought on by people who don't understand business.  If
>>and when I"m ever up here, I do understand business and we will not implode
>>whole segments of an industry... The fact is we didn't get cheaper airplane
>>tickets, we got more expensive airplane tickets."
>
>I believe this is factually incorrect.  Does anyone have the exact figures?


  The best I can come up with on short notice is a quote from the
Economist that "the cost of flying in America has fallen about 1/5 
since deregulation.

  I also know of studies that point to the fact that while numbers of
Air Carriers are reduced, competition in individual market places
has increased. This (I think) is partially due to less airlines having 
wholy dominant "hubs" where the consumer has little choice of airlines.


Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us
From: imcc@cs.strath.ac.uk (Iain McCord)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HOLOCAUST MYTHS
Date: 9 Apr 92 09:03:08 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.


  Why don't we form a group called  alt.myth.history.nazi  and get this shit
out of here!

		~~~~~/\~~~~~
Iain McCord	~~~~/()\~~~~	Thu Apr  9 10:03:06 WET DST 1992
		~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why should Libya hand over the PanAm bombers?
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:39:27 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA

In article <56Ev02ei0fUh01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
|> In article <53504@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
|> >When there's a war underneath it?
|> >
|> >What's been missing from this discussion as of late is the fact that the 
|> >Vincennes had come under attack by gunboats not long before.  The crew was
|> >understandably jumpy.
|> >
|> 
|> So what? It wasn't the USA's war.

So the crew of the Vincennes shouldn't have been jumpy, because the guys shooting
at them weren't *really* their enemies??  I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to
explain this a little better.

|> Chris

-- 
============================================================
Curt Fennell    [   "Get DOWN off that cross, honey!       ]
chf0@gte.com	[    Somebody needs the wood!"             ]
============================================================
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Airline Deregulation
Date: 15 Apr 92 05:16:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

jmo@courant.princeton.edu (Mike Orszag) writes:
>In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith saw an important role for the
>government in limiting monopoly power and regulating commerce. Now, if
>you deny any role for government and want to let the Mike Millken's
>and Lincoln Saving's of the world do what they want, then if that makes

Amazing.  And where was this free market that Millken and Lincoln
Savings were working under.  The same one which guaranteed bank
deposits up to $100,000 no matter how insane bank fiscal policies
were, that free market?


>you feel more free than that is fine. All I am saying is that from
>an objective standpoint tie-in arrangements such as frequent flyer
>coupons are economically inefficient and interfere with the price
>mechanism.

Care to back that up?  It's another form of price discounting such as
coupons, buy two get one free, and improved value for money.  Company
A may offer such incentives to encourage repeat customers, while
Company B may go for superior service, and Company C may go for rock
bottom prices, as Southwest Airlines does.

>In certain cases, markets are incomplete or competition
>insufficient due to scale economies; for instance, your local electricity
>company has a monopoly and could charge you a fortune if it were not
>regulated by the local government.

My local electrical company is a monopoly because the government
created it that way.  In a free market, a too expensive commodity
would result in alternate sources.


>If you prefer to get gauged by
>an airline or a local utility company that is fine, but you must
>realize that the end result is a lower income for you given initial
>resources and on top of that a distorted price system.

It's far superior to any of the alternatives.  Namely, government
interference and regulation, all of which are going to make the
situation worse.
-- 
A woman must be a cute, cuddly, naive little thing - tender, sweet, and stupid.
    -- Adolf Hitler
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,soc.women,soc.college