HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
X-Xxdate: Wed, 16 Dec 92 14:28:05 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:31:47 GMT

In article <77617@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> Mark Wilson,
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM writes:
>I've had long discourses with the good doctor in the past.  You have hit
>the nail on the head.

It's nice to see that Mark can still jump into the middle of a debate,
insult one of the posters, and provide no substantive contributions
to the discussion. Some people are just more gifted than others....

The fact is we weren't talking about "other abuses", we were talking about
how "terrible" this specific "scandal" is. I know there are other
congressional perks
that are abused and should be done away with. However, these perks have
been abused by both parties and is a non-partisan issue. However, the
Repubs tried to turn it into a partisan issue by claiming, despite the
facts, that it was all the doing of the evil democrats. The goal
was political gain, nothing more. This, coupled
with the misinformation about the nature of this
overdraft protection, is what I take exception to.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 18:08:52 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Dec15.193448.4741@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>
>2 - For a currency to be backed in oil.  You must have the right to trade
>both ways.  As one of the gold standard people said:
>$35 - gets a barrel of oil.
>a barrel of oil - gets $35.
>

...and anyone who wants to convert a goodly sum of money has to bring a 
tanker truck. The whole *point* of a standard (or one of the points,
actually) is so that people who lack confidence in the issuing body can
easily convert money back and forth.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
From: mjsimko@sumax.seattleu.edu (Matthew Simko)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: What to do with all the leftovers
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:24:03 GMT
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle, WA










						I was thumbing through my
mind, trying to remember what little I had heard from the Libs
presidential candidate and I recalled how he said that he would gut the
government. I was curious if anyone would answer the following concerns. 
1. What would AMerica do with all the out of work government employees?
I mean there would be hundred of thousands...millions? Not to mention
their families. Would our new Lib society be able to absorb and
incorporate that many new out of work folk?
2. Is it incompatable with the lib perspective for government to employ
lots of people? 
Just curious.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:04:00 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <BzD0IE.1Gz@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

>They suffered a low standard of living

The result of the low level of technology of the day.

>a high rate of ill-health,

The result of the low level of technology of the day.

You cannot compare living standards between now and anytime in the past
without first factoring out the changes in technology.

Most if not all of our improving life styles are the result of market
generated technology, not government meddling.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:30:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.011315.21886@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

}	Ok, if the price of gold isn't artificial, then why can't we sell
}of Fort Knox and end our annual budget deficit now.  In the early 60's the
}value of the holding in Fort Know was around 50 billion, and the price of
}gold was what $50- ounce.  Then on today's market that's worth at least
}400 billion, or larger than the annual deficit.  Come on now, the price is
}artificial.  Your claim about the trading doesn't mean anything.  Many
}cities have whole streets of diamond merchants, by your logic diamond
}prices aren't being artificial inflated.

The De Beers diamond cartel is a coercive one.  It has gotten States
globally to bar entry to mining, with one significant exception: Angola.
Since the Angolan civil war ended, a whole bunch of discharges but not
disarmed soldiers have taken work guarding a valley in which diamond
miners are flooding the market with diamonds - so much so that De Beers
has had to buy their output in order to try to maintain their position,
and has spent more buying it that they've taken in in sales revenue.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:30:42 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Dec17.094333.21278@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

|In article <77623@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|}In <BzD0IE.1Gz@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
|}
|}>They suffered a low standard of living
|}
|}The result of the low level of technology of the day.

|And the low marginal productivity of labor which was inherited from feudalism.

Low marginal productivity may have been inherited from feudalism, but it
wasn't caused by feudalism.  It was caused by a lack of technology.

For example, a man with a mule will never be able to haul as much as a man
with a tractor.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:12:45 GMT

In article <Bz9C3p.H7A@encore.com> rcollins@1.com writes:
>In article <1gi8khINNhd5@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>|> Gold went up in value because its price had been artificially maintained
>|> very low for quite a while by the US government.  That was one of the reasons
>|> why we went off the gold standard: it was impossible for the federal government
>|> to keep saying an ounce of gold was worth (approximately) $20.  This sort
>|> of deflation was very harmful for foreign trade, and threatened to depelete
>|> US gold reserves.
>
>Please explain.  If 20 dollars was backed by an ounce of gold, how was it
>"impossible for the federal government to keep saying an ounce of gold
>was worth" 20 dollars?  It would seem a lie to say that 20 dollars was
>worth any more or less than an ounce of gold since that's exactly what
>it represented.  (The 20 dollars = 1 oz. gold is just an example.
>What was the actual ratio when our currency was backed with gold?)

 I believe the word 'dollar' derived from meaning worth '1/20th an ounce
 of gold'.

 'The Federal Reserve is a runaway train, with fools for engineers.'
  The Shadow circa 1939
From: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM (Kris Skrinak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:49:36 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg8.corp.sun.com
Summary: Gold Standard = Religious Zealotry
Keywords: Gold, zealot, oil


The Gold Standard is to the Libertarian party what abortion is to the
republicans; an albatross with no understandable defense.

The liberatarian party places a childlike, religious faith in gold as
an economic cure-all. I find it especially astonishing that
net-liberatarians support it!

The value of any commodity, including currency, is the value that we
collectively place in it. This is true of gold and currency. When the
two are tied together the value of both will still fluctuate in the
market as the supply and demand for each fluctuates.


> Flame space reserved here for liberatarians who don't understand >
commodities or the free-market.


Why don't liberatarians advocate the binding of pork bellies to corn?
The price and production of corn actually is related to the price of
the meat that it produces!

The reason is simple: It doesn't make any sense.

We in the computer community should be naturally adept in dealing in
symbols and abstractions. Why then is it so difficult to deal with
currency as an abstraction, that has no inherent value.

From this perspective, it looks as though the republicans and democrats
have one up on us here: They can comfortably live with the concept of
currency as abstraction.

The assignment of a value to the dollar, in gold or any other commodity
(oil), would be arbitrary. This arbitrary assignment would place
restrictions on the free flow of other commondities on which it
depends, namely interest rates and other currencies, and would interupt
the market just as all other government-imposed restriction do.

Are we interpretting the constitution as _we_ see fit? Are the
liberatarians saying that 'All men are created equal' and meaning, all
european-descent, non-women, land-owning people are created equal? Or,
are we interpretting it too literally, as the fundimental christians
interpret the Bible. Maybe that's why liberaterians sound like
religious fanatics when talking about the gold standard!

The gold standard should be dropped from the Liberatarian Party
platform.  No one can defend it. Everyone who tries to sounds like a
zealot.

Kris Skrinak
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:49:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.201245.4598@bnr.ca> rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham) writes:
>In article <Bz9C3p.H7A@encore.com> rcollins@1.com writes:
>>(The 20 dollars = 1 oz. gold is just an example.
>>What was the actual ratio when our currency was backed with gold?)
>
> I believe the word 'dollar' derived from meaning worth '1/20th an ounce
> of gold'.

the word dollar derives from the low german "taler".
and the gold standard was $35 anyway.

--
charles
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:2635 alt.politics.marrou:2408 cmh.opinion:30 alt.politics.elections:24601 alt.president.clinton:1096
From: BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Brian Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,osu.opinion.libertarian,osu.opinion,alt.politics.marrou,cmh.opinion,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:34:58 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

It would have been refreshing to hear one of the rubbercheckers stand up
and say, "It was one of the perks, and I took advantage of it."  However,
what we heard was one after another lying about whether, how many, and
for how much.
 
If there was nothing wrong with their behavior, why were they so busy
trying to create the appearance (if that's all it was) of ignorance and
stupidity?  Because that should deserve our sympathy?  It must have
worked, judging by the number of them who were re-elected.
 
I'm not suggesting that the rubber check part was wrong.  I say they
deserve to be voted out of office for their lack of integrity.
 
Brian
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:22:18 GMT

In article <HWT=BL+@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.123301.14776@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>In article <#FT=a2-@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec15.193448.4741@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>>>
>>>>2 - For a currency to be backed in oil.  You must have the right to trade
>>>>both ways.  As one of the gold standard people said:
>>>>$35 - gets a barrel of oil.
>>>>a barrel of oil - gets $35.
>>>>
>>>
>>>...and anyone who wants to convert a goodly sum of money has to bring a 
>>>tanker truck. The whole *point* of a standard (or one of the points,
>>>actually) is so that people who lack confidence in the issuing body can
>>>easily convert money back and forth.
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
>>
>>	Why is it that you time and time again refuse to accept the
>>existence of commodity certificates and insist on pretending like people
>>actual have to cary oil around.  Recently a large chunk of IBM was sold at
>>the NYSE do you think that they picked up Poughkipse NY carried over to
>>the exchange building on Wall Street and sold it?!
>>	Stop with silly tanker stuff.
>
>Because in that case, you're just shifting faith in one body to another.
>If you convert your "oilbucks" to futures contracts on the exchange, then
>you're withdrawing your faith in the government, but taking faith in
>the commodity exchange. If said exchange folds up, you're up a creek...
>which could very, very well happen, if all currency was backed by oil
>and there was a panic. When you buy shares in IBM, all you've got is
>a piece of paper saying that you own X% of IBM. If NYSE suddenly folds,
>you've got a very serious problem.
>
>A good store of value, in order to both promote confidence and accomodate
>those who have no confidence, must be portable.
>
>-- 
>__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked


	If the major exchanges collapse, I can't see gold being worth much
either.  What your describing is a the collapse of western civ.  If that
happens, to quote a Russian proverb, "you can't eat gold".  No currency
standard will matter because there won't be a currency.  That would just
be an aweful situation.  Finally if society collapses to that extent, why
would the government (if there still was one which would be doubtful) make
good on the old govt. promise to pay in gold for green paper.  
	I don't see this as a valid objection

-JMB



Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: Somalia, Liberatarian State
Organization: Sometimes
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:54:06 GMT

In article <lii071INNngg@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
}In article 23318@genie.slhs.udel.edu, rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
}
}>    Libertarianism is based on the principle that no individual or group of
}> individuals has the right to initiate the use of force or fraud.  Somalia
}> is hardly an example of that premise.
}
}And how are those rights enforced? By a privately-funded police force?
}I think that's what the Somalian warlords are!

Rights can only be protected by individuals who respect the concept of
rights.  Such individuals may be private security agencies or consitute a
government.  However, I see no evidence that the "Somalian Warlords" as
they are being called, have any respect for the concept of rights.


}Let me phrase my question differently.
}
}Anarchy exists in Somalia, an vacuum of political structure exists.

I think it may be more accurate to say there exists in Somalia a condition
in which various groups are fighting for control of people and territory.

}How can a liberatarian structure be implemented in this country? What
}are the steps? Is it possible? Most importantly, does it make sense in
}Somalian culture?

Personally, I'm much more interested in seeing renewed respect for rights
and liberty here in the United States.


-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
From: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 08:45:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mousebat, Follicle, Goosecreature, Ampersand, Spong, Wapcaplet,                 Looseliver, Vendetta & Pang

According to starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr):
>In article <1992Dec15.190710.629039@zeus.calpoly.edu> dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>}As far as I can see, term-limits is a way of restricting who can run for
>}office and who citizens can vote for.  I can't see this as a libertarian
>}proposal.  This "stop me before I vote again" thing is profoundly
>}anti-liberty, IMHO.  The law should step in and prevent people for
>}voting for an incumbent?
>
>The short answer is, yes.  It should.  One reason is that studies have
>shown that there's a direct correlation between incumbency duration and
>spending.  The higher the first is, the higher the second tends to be.

	This is one of the worst arguments I can think of for
	changing the way in which the people select their
	representatives in a democracy.  Taken ad absurdum,
	would you support an initiative that prohibited the
	people from voting for women, or Jews, or people above
	six feet in height, if it were shown that those groups
	were more likely to be big spenders?

	I don't sit easy with the idea that we should use "studies"
	showing "correlations" to filter our who is and who is
	not worthy to be elected in a democracy.
-- 
******************* INTERNET: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU **********************
"I think the issue is that we ought to tell children that sex is -- is death.
 Promiscuous sex is death.  They shouldn't be doing that."
					-- Barbara Bush
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross)
Subject: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Organization: Manumission:  The Campus Men's Forum
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:07:10 GMT

A newspaper article I read recently had as a thesis the idea that while
Libertarians as a party have fairly insignificant ballot-box totals, as
a movement they have had a strong effect on policy.

They mentioned the recent (and highly successful) term limits crusade,
saying that prominent libertarians donated cash to term limits
initiative promoters, and libertarian activists gave support.

The next project?  School vouchers.  Which leads me to my questions:

1) Is there any truth to the contention that the LP, or libertarians in
general, are supportive of term limits and school vouchers?

2) Are these small-l libertarian proposals?

As far as I can see, term-limits is a way of restricting who can run for
office and who citizens can vote for.  I can't see this as a libertarian
proposal.  This "stop me before I vote again" thing is profoundly
anti-liberty, IMHO.  The law should step in and prevent people for
voting for an incumbent?

And school vouchers is a way of destroying private schools as an
institution by making them semi-public.  Really, now, once this voucher
system becomes law, the next step is to say that a private school must
bow down to the government in the following zillion ways before they can
accept vouchers.

Don't believe me?  Look at what the U.S. government does to so-called
"Private" colleges.  If any student attending a private college gets a
government grant, that college must abide by any number of federal laws.

School vouchers are a conservative, elitist, populist proposal -- not a
libertarian one.  What's going on here?

-- 
***************** INTERNET: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.EDU ********************
"That man has missed something who has never left a brothel at sunrise feeling
 like throwing himself into the river out of pure disgust."
					-- Gustave Flaubert
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: jfmcbray@sacam.OREN.ORTN.EDU (Jason F McBrayer)
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:59:49 GMT


Someone or another at some time wrote:

	Your attempting to eliminate the problem by getting rid of 1-3.
	In other words solve the problem of scarcity by not having anything worth
	owning.  Why?  Clearly the vast majority of people would rather work hard
	and have 1-4 then not work hard and not have 
	them. 
That's not what I'm saying...in the last part of my silly diatribe, I said
that that was impossible.  We cannot go back to a pre-scarcity economy. 
All I was trying to establish in my description of Paleo/Mesolithic
society was that the necessities of life were practically infinite.  And I
am not measuring standard of living in terms of calories.  An early
civilized society had access to more calories than a hunting-gathering
society, but they had poorer nutrition, due to reliance on one staple
crop, shorter lifespans, and longer working days.
	In recent years (since 1900 or so) industrialization has helped
solve the nutritional problems of civilized society.  And we have stuff;
don't think I'm not glad to have a computer and a microwave!  But the
comparison between a traditional bushman and his modernized cousin is
invalid.  A better comparison would be between that bushman and a
Mesopotamian farmer of 3000 BCE; the bushman had a higher standard of
living, but neither had "anything worth having."  Technology has gone a
long way to cure the ills of civilization, but scarcity still exists.
	What I meant by production being unlinked from labor and capital
was that the production is done automatically by something that you don't
have to work for hours to benefit from.  An antelope or a ground squash
were just there for the taking; no one had to work a 40 hour week for them
to be produced.  When technology advances sufficiently, self-replicating
nanomachinery will guarantee that computers and microwaves will be "there
for the taking".  Don't think you have to give up your "stuff".  It's
impossible now, so all I can do immediately is urge compassion in the
meantime.

___________________________________________________

Jason F. McBrayer
jfmcbray@sacam.oren.ortn.edu
"There is nothing more damaging than the spirit of seriousness"



Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton