HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Subject: Re: privitization
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 17:47:02 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Jul23.152708.14105@husc3.harvard.edu>
	<TSF.92Jul23162609@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Jul24.122604.14133@husc3.harvard.edu>
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord in '92!
Organization: (none)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:00:09 GMT

In article <rl=mt+b.scotty@netcom.com> scotty@netcom.com (J Scott Peter) writes:
>In article <1992Jul6.204130.27417@babbage.ece.uc.edu> dhollind@don.ece.uc.edu (David Y Hollinden) writes:
> [Re Andre Marrous's 10-point plan]
>>Number one: Repeal the personal income tax and abolish the IRS.
> ...
>>Number ten: Privatize education, charitize welfare, and allow a choice in
>>all matters.
>
>These points are are totally impractical for the near future.  The income
>tax cannot be abolished just like that.  There has to be some sort of
>gradual and workable plan, that would take place over many years (much
>more than the term of a president).  Same goes for abolishing welfare, to
>a lesser extent.

When Marrou spoke in NY, a few months ago, he presented a gradual, workable
plan for doing just that!  Marrou's plan was non-disruptive, but would not
take as many years as you think.

I can't quote exact details, but here are a few of the points I recall.
He noted that attrition from Federal jobs is about 7-10%, and proposed 
to reduce the Federal payroll by that amounbt without layoffs.  He gave
examples of Federal property that could be sold immediately, to retire 
the deficit.  (One example was a golf course in the middle of San Francisco.)
Wiping out the debt would eliminate new Federal spending for interest
on the debt -- that amount alone would nearly eliminate the need for
a personal income tax!  The revenues from selling and privatizing
various Federal businesses would be enormous, and the new private
businesses would pay taxes, too!

>
>Compare Marrou's points to the LP's 1991 platform ...
>
>While the LP platform seemed like a serious suggestion for the course of
>the United States in the next few years, and actually made me consider
>voting Libertarian, reading Marrou's suggestions makes me think he's
>living in dream land.

Marrou's proposals are serious and workable, if you give him a chance
to explain the details.  It's Clinton's proposals that make one think
the author is living in a dream land!!

>-- 
>J Scott Peter XXXIII  // "Instantiating open solutions in the emerging arena
>scotty@netcom.com    // of transcending the de-facto horizons of industry-
>Las Anjealous       // standard paradigms."


bam@bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin, I)  /|\Master of the Tripods of Hephaestus./|\  
[My opinions are my property, belong to me only, and represent no one else!]
# include discaimers.h            /***** Marrou/Lord in '92 *****/
# delete BUSHLIPS                 /***** CALL 800-682-1776  *****/
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:101 talk.politics.misc:35015
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: unfair treatment of LP (getting better in New Hampshire)
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:46:43 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


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

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: werme@alliant.com (Ric Werme)
Subject: Re: privitization (was Re: Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord in
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:32:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.122604.14133@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>I think the problem is that people think that private business
>is automatically well run, competent and will make a profit.
>That is a myth.  Just look at GM, what were they doing when
>Japanese cars were making inroads.

Well, yeah, sort of.

The idea behind private business is that the poorly run ones will fail
and be come history, and that the well run ones will remain.  GM
deserved to do poorly.  They actually seem to be getting their act
back in order and stand a decent chance doing well in the future.

Suppose we had banned or put an extremely high tariff on foreign
cars.  We would probably have a rather nice choice between a bunch
of dud cars.  Instead we have a choice between fewer and fewer duds
and decent imports and (now) several decent domestic cars.

In fact, the economy in the midwest is doing pretty well compared to
California and the northeast.  Instead of GM, let's all take a look
at DEC and watch it turn itself into a less top-heavy, slow-to-market
dinosaur into what could be good company in a couple years.

As for public business, governments just don't go out of business.
When they get in trouble, they can legislate whatever it takes to
remain in business.  Can you believe that people actually put children
in private schools while continuing to pay for public schools?  Or that
some veterans actually go to private medical care even though the VA
provides them government medical care?  And neither institution shows
any sign of going out of business.
-- 
| A pride of lions               | Eric J Werme                 |
| A gaggle of geese		 | 77 Tater St			|
| An odd lot of programmers      | Mont Vernon NH  03057	|
| A Constitution of Libertarians | Phone: 603-673-3993		|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:280 alt.politics.elections:9325
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:04:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.marrou
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <8eR=E7200h5y9Cn25K@andrew.cmu.edu> cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Conrad Poelman) writes:

>government to benefit themselves.  The AMA regulates how many of what
>sort of doctors get licensed, in some states directly (i.e. the state
>*gives* the AMA that power) and in some states indirectly (the state
>accredidation board basically rubber-stamps AMA decisions).  They are
>supposed to determine how many of what specialists they think the state
>or country will need, and only allow that many into medical schools. 

You know, it would be really nice if people knew something about
what they were talking about instead of just spouting this nonsense.
The AMA has nothing to say about how many of each specialty goes to
what state.  Licensure is handled by state licensing boards, not
the AMA.  Licensure is obtained right after internship and before
specialty training is taken.  Before the student enters medical
school, how the hell is the AMA going to know what kind of specialist
he is eventually going to become anyhow?  The AMA also has nothing
to do with the requirements for specialty board certification (not
licensure).  No specialty board takes geographical considerations
into account in setting up its board requirements.  Anyone who
completes an approved residency and passes the exam will be
board certified without regard to anything else.

>After all, the AMA specifically deems it "unethical" for doctors to
>complete on the basis of price, and can censure its members that do,
>possibly forcing them to lose their license.  

The AMA has no way of determining my prices nor of telling me whether
they are too low.  AMA censure can have no effect on non-members,
and can have no effect on the state license.

The AMA is a political lobbying group.  They also develop positions
on various issues and have a high visibility in this regard.  They
also publish medical journals and provide other services.  They
have no legal power over licensure.  Most MDs do not belong to
the AMA anymore.  They have no power over non-members, except as
they are able to get legislation passed that affects us.  The only
power they have over members is to expel them, which might cause
adverse publicity and cause them to lose some referrals, but not
much else of consequence.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:21:00 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Jul24.174409.28165@ornl.gov>
	<1682EC8E0.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1682EC8E0.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:

   If a few thousand people die in buildings that burn down because of bad
   wiring, well, these folks have to pay the consequences for choosing to
   live in unsafe housing, now don't they?

It is neccessary to consider all the alternatives before rejecting any
one of them.  The relevant alternative here is that these people live
out-of-doors, and you need to argue that they'll be less safe in
unregulated housing than they would be when they're living
out-of-doors, if that's the conclusion you want to reach.

   Libertarians usually fail to follow their proposals to their logical
   conclusions.  They really believe their own propaganda, and that all
   would be right with the world if their proposals were enacted.  

I actually haven't seen any claims that all would be right if society
became libertarian.  The usual claim is that things would be better
than they are now.  

   There
   is no point in arguing with the true believers.  They start from a
   totally different set of premises, so logical arguments are wasted on
   them.

Well, good thing you didn't waste a logical argument on us.  Even if
we are a bunch of irrational wackos, you will be better off
constructing better arguments because you will tend to believe what
you say.  If you speak garbage, your mind gradually fills up with
garbage.
--
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:159 alt.politics.elections:9087
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: privitization
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:20:55 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <nr8a3a4@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul27.104017.14219@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>The speculation you are talking about was caused mainly by 
>government subsidized, taxpayer backed Federal Savings and 
>Loan Insurance.  Definitely *NOT* libertarian.  Maybe you
>should learn what libertarian theory really is before you
>start blaming things on it.
>
>thant

My dear, I was not blaming anything on the Liberatarians (yet)
because luckily they are not in power.  If you had read the whole thread
you would have seen that I said that Marrou's plans to privatize
the federal gov't was a theory that would not work, that it was
a theory like Thatcher tried in Britain and it has not rescued
Britain from the morass of recession.  

I analogized the selling off of gov't assets to the specualtion
of the 1980s, where large profits where made on paper but no
consumer goods where produced for us.  (we do not buy F-16 fighters).

This type of specualtion was also done during Thatcher's sell-offs with
alot of people making money on the quick during the privatization.  But
the privatizatin hasnt seemed to have along run effect to boost Britain's
economy.

So I said a sell of the US govt assets like the LIberatarians
support would also probably lead to this result.  LIke
Thatcher's claims it was all theory and would not solve the
problems (probably only contribute to them).

Specualtion comes in many forms -- the 1980's may have been
encouraged by the govt  S&L insurance like you say.  In
the LIberatarian idea of govt sell-off specualtion would
also be encouraged by the gov't but in  a different method.
I.E. sell off/ privatize gov't assets, so the gov't
would be saying "take us for all we got" and never mind
the consequences (the same thinking of the 1980s even
if the theories are different).




Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:266 alt.politics.elections:9296
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:06:00 GMT
 <168318A82.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> <1992Jul28.083814.5081@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Jul28.083814.5081@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes...
>This is the position that the libertarian philosopher W.W. Bartley III
>called the "justificationist" one.  If you were familiar with libertarian
>thought, you might have a chance of knowing this.  This position is that
>foundationl premises are necessarily arbitrary, and not subject to any sort
>of justification whatsoever.
> 
>However, justification of premises is possible.  Just because you may be
>ignorant of the justification of libertarian premises or your own doesn't
>mean that there is none possible.  Care to try to criticize ours or defend
>your own?

Just for the record, this second paragraph is *not* Bartley's position.
Bartley rejects justification completely, replacing it with criticism;
this is parallel to Popper's replacement of induction with falsification
in science (Bartley was a student of Popper).

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:104 talk.politics.misc:35040
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: unfair treatment of LP (getting better in New Hampshire)
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:23:52 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

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.
>.............................................................................

Well, last I head, and I don't get up that way often, that they had 
implimented a post-Purdy "assault weapon" ban, had a waiting period for 
handguns, and assorted other "Brady Bunch" legislation. If my heresay is 
incorrect, please let me know.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:204 alt.politics.elections:9172
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Housing codes (was Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King)
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:21:40 GMT
	<1992Jul24.174409.28165@ornl.gov>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

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.

   Those pesky codes aren't designed to
   drive up the cost of housing, they're there to ensure safety.  

Irrelevant (although this part of the original post, if narrowly
construed, is also a little irrelevant).  The relevant issue is the
effect the regulations have, not the effect they were designed to
have.  I also question the assumption that the stated purpose is the
true purpose, but I'll let that slide.

   Should
   people be allowed to live in unsafe housing just because they can't
   afford safety features?  

You should look at the available alternatives before you decide
against one of them.  People are ultimately going to pay for the
safety features in their living space, either indirectly through the
landlord or directly if they own their own.  So if a person who cannot
afford safety features is forbidden to live in space without the
safety features, then they're going to live outdoors.  My answer to
your question is "yes, and people who can afford safe housing but
choose not to should also be allowed to live in the environment they
want".

   Shaving 10, 20, or even 30% off the cost of
   construction won't solve the homeless problem.

Incorrect numbers.  In Pittsburgh, the housing codes limit the number
of people who can live in a particular space.  I have seen students
put double that number into an apartment, so the potential savings to
poor people who want to get out of the rain is at least 50%.
--
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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.individualism,talk.politics.drugs
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Will Libertarians clog up the courts?
Organization: Western Washington University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:25:18 GMT

werme@alliant.com (Ric Werme) writes:
>drugs.  If marijuana, cocaine, etc were all available from your friendly
>neighborhood pharmacy or head shop, the entire organized crime distribution
>system would collapse.  The shootings over drugs would mostly dry up,
>probably ending becoming close to the holdup rates for tobacco and liquor
>today.  Alcohol consumption declined after prohibition was repealed, so don't
>expect a surge in drug use, either.

One thing I've thought of recently:  after prohibition of alcohol ended,
crime didn't dry up overnight.  The murder rate, very high in the 30s,
tapered down over some years after legalization, rather than dropping
right off.  This is because all the thugs that were in the booze business
when the government gave them a monopoly still existed afterwards.   They
were still killing people, they just didn't earn big money anymore.  Some
of them retired, but quite a few moved into other areas of crime: 
kidnapping, a doomed loser's game by any measure, being a popular one.
Robbery and extortion were another venue for these people.  

The people in the dope business now, when they can no longer make an
"honest" living with a government protected illegal drug monopoly, 
what are they going to do?   I think that just like before, quite a
few of them will go the market where they have experience, breaking
the law: arson, extortion, robbery, kidnapping, murder.   The people
who are doing "drug related" shootings now, will be doing "robbery
related" shootings and "asshole related" shootings in the years following
repeal.

Jim Del Vecchio
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:138 alt.politics.perot:1047 talk.politics.misc:35545
From: wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Questions about libertarianism
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:50:48 GMT
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Jul22.133510.28356@Veritas.COM>, oleg@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
> 
> wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes) writes:
> >The principle was that when people made improvements
> >to land, they should benefit by acquiring ownership rights.
> 
> What sort of "improvement" can you do to the wilderness that is supposed to
> stay untouched to preserve natural wildlife habitats?

That's a very good question, and I don't have an answer.  I was not thinking
of untouched wilderness for homesteading, and it may not apply very well to
that problem.  However, there is an enormous amount of formerly untouched
wilderness that has been clear-cut and otherwise damaged with the active
collusion of our beneficent federal government.

A group like Earth First! for example, might "improve" a chunk of National
Forest by removing the government-built logging roads and protecting the
area from further damage.  Such a group could take responsibility for
nurturing and restoring the wilderness.

The U.S. Forest Service has amply demonstrated their complete inability
to protect untouched wilderness, and I say it's time to let the private
sector take over the responsibility.

> What objective criteria can be used to arbitrate a dispute bewteen an 
> environmentalist group that claims the ownership because they are preserving
> the wilderness vs. a mining company that wants to uproot the forest to get at
> the minerals, or a lumber company, or a housing developer?

Sorting out property rights is one reason that "governments are instituted
among men."  I would propose laws that grant property rights in these areas,
to clearly establish ownership.  Voila!  Objective criteria!

Regards,

John Wilkes   <wilkes@apple.com>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:174 alt.politics.elections:9128