HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: What is Marrou's position on research and space exp?
Keywords: Marrou, policy, space
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:11:16 GMT

In article <Bs2rn3.25q@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, el27166@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Lex Luthor) writes:

|> What exactly IS a Libertarian?

Someone who believes that all transactions between people should be
voluntary.  

|>  If I knew, I might be one.  Then again,
|> I might say the same for Fascism.  Would a Libertarian be someone in
|> favor of a pornographic magazine featuring scantily-clad neo-nazi blondes
|> in brown-shirts entitled "Fashion in Fascism Today"? 

A Libertarian would have no problem with two consenting people buying and selling
a magazine like that.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Subject: Homelessness (was Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 22:35:12 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Jul24.174409.28165@ornl.gov>
	<1992Jul24.193517.2950@mumbo.apple.com>
	<1992Jul27.195016.6082@ornl.gov>
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Jul27.195016.6082@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
   In article <1992Jul24.193517.2950@mumbo.apple.com>, wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes) writes:
   >Should people be forced to live on the street (or in some
   >government-providedbarracks) just because they can't afford the
   >government approved and inspected housing?

   Perhaps.  Maybe it will encourage the rest of the community to address the
   problem.

You seem to be advocating oppressing the homeless as a means toward
manipulating the rest of the community.  Do you really want to do
that?  I thought the purpose was to get them indoors, rather than to
use them as a tool for manipulating the masses.  We can't reason about
the masses, so with sufficiently creative assumptions about how the
masses behave, and declarations that manipulating the masses is
sufficently urgent, you can justify any social program you please.

   I analyze the situation to determine why what I'm doing isn't
   working.  I don't automatically assume I need to do less of it, or
   something different.  I might need to do more, less, or the same, but
   wait longer for improvement.  I might need to do something else,
   perhaps in addition to what I'm doing.  But I don't just assume what
   needs to be done based on the party line.     

Okay, analyze the situation and tell us why homelessness continues.
We're claiming that the libertarian solution is the best of the ones
available, and you're dismissing it without considering any other
options.  If you really want to say something relevant, then you need
to give a better option.

Here's our analysis:  One of the contributing causes of homelessness
is expensive housing.  Therefore an obvious way to reduce it is to
eliminate the regulations that increase the cost of housing.  There
are risks associated with unregulated housing, just as there are risks
associated with everything else.  But it is better for people to pick
their risks themselves than for us to pick for them, because we don't
know their values or the details of the situation.
--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>    CompuServe ID 71045,2267 checked occasionally.
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:247 alt.politics.elections:9264
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:40:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.marrou
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul24.174409.28165@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
> >* A caller asked Marrou how he would tackle the homeless problem.
> >  Marrou said the problem was caused by zoning, restrictive 
> >  electric/plumbing codes, and other regulations that are designed for 
> >  the middle class and drive up the cost of housing beyond what the poor
> >  can afford.  If home builders were free from regulation, they 
> >  could build affordable housing and homelessness would be greatly 
> >  reduced.
> 
> Sounds like snake oil, to me.  Those pesky codes aren't designed to drive up
> the cost of housing, they're there to ensure safety.  Should people be allowed
> to live in unsafe housing just because they can't afford safety features? 

Yeah, I'm so sure.  Try telling it to a guy who was told he had to put a
full $4,000 foundation underneath a $1,000 prefab toolshed because "anything
over 100 square feet falls under the residential code."  Just making the
world safer for your lawn mower, Ma'am.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:225 alt.politics.elections:9229
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: privitization
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 27 Jul 92 10:40:16 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <TSF.92Jul25124702@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU> tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes:
>koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>
>   tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes:
>   >Do you have a model for what went wrong?
>
>   <Wordy reply that doesn't attempt to explain anything deleted.>
>
>Okay, so you don't have a model for what went wrong.  I'd be happier
>if you had been more honest about that, though.
>--
>Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>    CompuServe ID 71045,2267 checked occasionally.
>When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
>When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
>When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
>Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.



What went wrong was the theory didnt work.  People made alot
of profit buying in at the privatization and then selling a little later
so there were alot of paper profit (just like here in the 1980s) but
the idea of all this privately run business, with competition, etc.
putting the Great back in Great Britain again didnt happen.  Britain
is in its longest recesiion with some pretty dismal economic
statistics.  

My point was that this suposed cure from the LIberatarians is
just a theory and one that might sound good but really would just
serve to make specualtors money and not produce any goods.  THat
also sound reminiscent of the 1980s in the US.














Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.theory
From: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: Position on intellectual property?
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:00:23 GMT

From article <EPPERLY.92Jul30113634@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by epperly@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tom Epperly):
> Is there an official LP position on intellectual property or lack
> there of?  The Constitution gives the congress the power "to promote
> the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times
> to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
> writings and discoveries."  In our current government, this is
> realized as copyright and patents.  Would the Libertarians do anything
> different?
> 
> Recently, software companies have been trying to extend the uses of
> copyright to include the look-and-feel of a user interface and the
> uses of patents to include algorithms.  This has increased the role of
> the law and government in the lives of programmers.  Is this
> justified or is it just another example of the government grabbing more
> power and influence?  My sig file states my position, but I am
> wondering what a Libertarian answer is.
> 
> 					Tom
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Epperly	University of Wisconsin-Madison		Chemical Engineering
> (608) 262-8264	epperly@osnome.che.wisc.edu		Graduate Student
> Member of the League for Programming Freedom(fighting software monopolies)
> 	For more info contact me or league@prep.ai.mit.edu
> If you feel you must flame, please send email rather than posting.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The LP Platform takes no position on patents and copyrights.

My opinion, as a student of the libertarian philosophy for 22 years, is that
the govt.  should not protect inventions with patent laws and copyright laws.

My opinion is that the protection of intellectual property should come from
contract law or common law.

As a start, I would recommend that the length of patents and copyrights be
shortened as much as possible.

For your specific question regarding "look and feel" patents, I think they
are a big mistake for many practical and moral reasons.

They stifle innovation and strongly favor large companies over small ones.
They are subjective and difficult to administer.

They govt. has invented a "right" where none existed before.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
It is often stated (and certainly true) that the poor have no right
to the wealth of the rich.  It is seldom stated (but equally true)
that the rich have no right to the wealth of the poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer a small government which may permit some evil to
a large government which promotes evil at my expense.
---------------------------------------------------------

Michael Lee
mlee@esd.dl.nec.com
214-518-3807
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:246 alt.politics.elections:9263
From: wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:11:45 GMT
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Jul27.195016.6082@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Jul24.193517.2950@mumbo.apple.com>, wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes) writes:
> >
> >Of course not.  Building codes are supposed to ensure safety, not drive up
> >the cost of housing, but the simple fact is that they fail on both counts.
> 
> No, it's not a "simple fact" that building codes fail to ensure safety.  Please
> enlighten me.

Anectodtal evidence:
During the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989, many freshly built houses were
destroyed.  These recently built houses supposedly conformed to the latest
building codes, which include many regulations aimed at making houses
"earthquake safe."  Government building codes are no guarantee of safety.

(FYI, my house, sitting on top of the epicenter, sustained some damage, but
was repairable.  The newly-built houses that were destroyed are many miles
from the epicenter.  My house was built about 17 years ago, prior to the
newer earthquake-related regulations.)
 
I'm sure there are plenty of stories of unsafe structures that were duly
inspected by the government building code enforcer.

John Wilkes   <wilkes@apple.com>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:102 alt.politics.perot:983 alt.politics.elections:8750
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Libertarian ticket supported on Rush Limbaugh show
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:41:35 GMT

Today (Teusday July 21) a caller to the Rush Limbaugh radio show ("over 
12 million listeners"), who said he agreed with Rush "80% of the time",
promoted the Libertarian ticket.  Jim Kern, who was subbing for Rush,
said he had voted Libertarian Ed Clark for president in 1980.  Jim
complained that Libertarians "did not bother" to get their message in
the media, so that he hadn't even heard who their presidential
candidates were this year.  The caller then mentioned their names, 
Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord.

Jim is having "open lines" today, Wednesday, and Thursday this week,
meaning callers can choose the topic, as long as you can convince
Bo Snerdley that you will "make the host look good".  The number is 
1-800-282-2882; you usually have to redial for 15 minutes to get through.  
I have gotten through to the screeners twice.  The first time Bo said "we 
don't have advocates on this show" (!?), but then said to call back on an 
open-line day. The second time was today; his screener-in-training 
said "we already had a Libertarian on today."  They also had on several 
Bush supporters, so perhaps a larger number of Libertarian callers will 
show that Rush's fans either support or are interested in learning about 
the Libertarian phenomenon.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:165 alt.politics.elections:9097
From: gag65@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Nomination for LP Mascot
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 18:30:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.155847.10114@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.000715.19211@microsoft.com> chrispi@microsoft.com (Chris Pirih) writes:
>>;>> Do the Libertarians have a mascot?  Is anybody using the
>>;>> bull moose?
>
>How about the "Don't tread on me" copperhead?
>
>                                Nancy Lebovitz
>                                  calligraphic button catalogue available
>                                        by email
>                                nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>
Here's another vote for the "Don't Tread On Me" Copperhead for LP Mascot.  If I
remember correctly, one of the reasons it was chosen by revolutionaries from
the Southern colonies was due to its virtue of striking humans only when
attacked--hence the "Don't Tread on Me" warning to Britain.  If this is true,
I'd say an animal that has a "Live and Let Live" policy but is ready and able to
defend itself against agression would be a worthy mascot for the Libertarian
Party.

(Plus, you can get a bright yellow flag with the emblem on it at any flag
store--I don't think you can find too many turtle flags in stock.)


Gary Gorka
gag65@cas.org





















Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: unfair treatment of LP (getting better in New Hampshire)
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:41:59 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: UB

In article <1992Jul21.194804.29636@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson) writes:
>
>In article <archer.109@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes...
>> 
>>Personally, I find it ironic that the state whose motto is "Live Free or 
>>Die" is in the forefront of undermining Second Amendment civil liberties.
>> 
>Could you explain that?  As far as I know, New Hampshire has amongst the
>least restrictive firearms restrictions in the nation.  You must be
>confusing them with Massachusetts, which has amongst the worst.
>.............................................................................

Naw, he's confusing him with New Jersey.  Actually, he may have
over-generalized a bit and thought, "well, if it's located in
New England and begins with the word 'New', it most probably has
some of the worst laws concerning the 2nd Amendment in the country."

Looking at the rest of the New England states with the word
'New' in their names, can you blame him?

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:51:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Jul30.173900.2895@mcs.anl.gov>, shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes...
>>Of course regulations cost.  Who ever said they do not?  The
>>Libertarian alternative of removing these regulations costs too.  You
>>assume builders would only cut corners on housing for poor people?  I
>>don't.  I assume they will cut corners on my house given the chance.
>>Without standards, they would have no reason not to do so.  I don't
>>want my kids sleeping in a firetrap because the builder could save a
>>few dollars on the electrical system, while charging me for more
>>expensive parts.
> 
>So don't buy it. Commision a house and/or inspect it yourself. Don't
>buy it if you don't like the way it is built. With the regulations
>gone you could even build your own.
> 

The libertarian solution is none of the above, though we'd certainly let
*YOU* decide to buy a house with no assurance if that's what you wanted.
That is not "the answer" that libertarians offer.  Libertarians
postulate, expect, and can demonstrate that private sector alternatives
to gov't regulation will appear to assist you.  In the world of
electrical appliances we have Underwriters Laboratories.  Real Estate
practices are governed by local realty boards.  Housing developments with
covenants have Architectural Control Committees.  Computing standards are
developed by non-governmental bodies.

Without government regulation of housing construction, you the consumer,
would have to look for something equivalent to a UL approval on a house
before buying.  The mortgage lenders and insurance companies would, if no
one else did, finance the formation of such a private sector
organization.  They would also likely charge higher loan rates and
insurance rates for houses that were not approved, at least those that
didn't meet various safety criteria (quality of construction not meaning
as much to them, as long as the price matches the quality).

Some of this goes on already, but all too often it gets lip service
because "the state will take care of us."  Examples include having a
structural inspection and appraisal before the mortgage lender will close
on the house!  You can decide to pay $500,000 for a house, but if the
mortagage lender's appraisal comes up as it being worth $200,000 then
that's all they will loan you.
.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:25:48 GMT

In article <5214@transfer.stratus.com>
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
 
>In article <168327B27.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>> Of course regulations cost.  Who ever said they do not?  The
>> Libertarian alternative of removing these regulations costs too.  You
>> assume builders would only cut corners on housing for poor people?  I
>> don't.  I assume they will cut corners on my house given the chance.
>> Without standards, they would have no reason not to do so.  I don't
>> want my kids sleeping in a firetrap because the builder could save a
>> few dollars on the electrical system, while charging me for more
>> expensive parts.
>
>Could you please explain what portion of the libertarian philosophy
>approves of fraud; or how "regulations" keeps the builder from doing
>this to you ANYWAY?  (Regulations, now, not inspections.  You could
>hire your OWN inspector.)
>--
>
>cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
>OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
 
I do not say you approve of fraud, just that your proposals make it
easier to carry out and harder to detect.  The regulations create a
common set of standards the builder must meet.  Without them, you could
have hundreds of inspectors, each with his own criteria.  As a
non-expert, I would not know which set of criteria to choose.  Now, I
know the structure has at least passed the minimum standards set by the
building code.
 
I did hire an inspector for my last house.  He missed several things
that cost me about $5000 to fix.  I am convinced that he and my realtor
colluded and ripped me off.  There is no way to prove that in a court
of law, however, so I just took the loss.  So much for the "just sue
them" theory.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: usenet@wuecl.wustl.edu (Usenet Administrator)
Subject: Re: Lib ticket Rush Limbaugh show (and other radio shows)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:12:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.234135.2058@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Today (Teusday July 21) a caller to the Rush Limbaugh radio show ("over 
>12 million listeners"), who said he agreed with Rush "80% of the time",
>promoted the Libertarian ticket.  Jim Kern, who was subbing for Rush,
>said he had voted Libertarian Ed Clark for president in 1980.  Jim
>complained that Libertarians "did not bother" to get their message in
>the media, so that he hadn't even heard who their presidential
>candidates were this year.  The caller then mentioned their names, 
>Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord.
>
>Jim is having "open lines" today, Wednesday, and Thursday this week,
>meaning callers can choose the topic, as long as you can convince
>Bo Snerdley that you will "make the host look good".  The number is 
>1-800-282-2882; you usually have to redial for 15 minutes to get through.  
>I have gotten through to the screeners twice.  The first time Bo said "we 
>don't have advocates on this show" (!?), but then said to call back on an 
>open-line day. The second time was today; his screener-in-training 
>said "we already had a Libertarian on today."  They also had on several 
>Bush supporters, so perhaps a larger number of Libertarian callers will 
>show that Rush's fans either support or are interested in learning about 
>the Libertarian phenomenon.
>

Just thought that I would add that Marrou will be on the Larry King
Radio Show this coming friday.

Also, Stan Major does a five hour call-in show every week night on the
Sun Radio Network.  It is a nationally syndicated show.  He is very
open minded and often mentions the LP, and other third parties and
independents.  He likes to hear people call in and present different
or unconventional views on political matters.  He is one of the few
media people who will even mention third party candidates.

______________________________________________________________________
Brandon C. Morrisey    -    bcm1@cec1.wustl.edu    -    (314)862-2627
         When it's you against the world, bet on the world.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.theory