HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Age of Consent
Date: 17 Aug 1992 23:04:42 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

>In a libertarian society, such criminal behavior could
>actually be prosecuted.

Why is that? The behavior is of a pimp is illegal now. NO changes
necessary. I can't see how in libertopia the police are going to be any 
more adept at catching criminals than they are now. Or should we just
take a leap of faith as you have?

>You have absolutely no evidence to support your irrational belief that
>recognition of children's rights are open invitations to child
>molesters and abusers.
> What is clear is that the plank represents an
>opportunity for children to end up with better guardians than they
>might have with their natural parents. It also provides a means for
>hildren who have abusive parents to escape that environment without
>having to run away to the streets or become wards/prisoners of the
>state.

Now who is making statments that have no evidence for support? You
are speculating only. Most experts in the field I'm sure would disagree
with your stand. I'm laughing big booming laughs when you call
his line of reasoning "irrational." It seemed well reasoned to me. 
Or is anyone who disgrees with you or the libs by definition irrational?
From: c3q@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Tax Evasion...a justifiable idea?
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:59:38 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Cornell University



Any thoughts on the following?:


The U.S. government, through taxation for purposes other than protecting the
peace (i.e. welfare, the NEA, the National Parks, corn subsidies, etc. ad
nauseum) is guilty of aggression. 

Option 1: pay no taxes.
(Of course, doing so is illegal, but legality just means that the masses or the
mob-elected dictators declared something to be so).

Option 2: As I am protected by the police and military (institutions which are
necessary and serve everyone), I should pay a percentage of my true taxes
reflecting the percentage of the budget spent on them.

Option 3: I should pay all taxes and wait for a Libertarian president.


Corollary question: am I under any obligation to tell the government that I'm
protesting, and witholding taxes, or should I counter the agression as best I
can (i.e. fight a guerilla war, not an 8th century well-mannered war).

My feeling is that Option 2 is the most easilly defended, but that Option 1
could be defended as a retaliatory blow (provoked by the many unconstitutional
government incursions into my private life).  Either way, I think you'd have to
be stupid to tell Big Brother your intentions.

Disclaimer:  For the record:  I pay 100% of all the taxes I owe, and do not
intend to cheat on my taxes, but am merely discussing theoretical arguments for
doing so.

-Travis

                      







Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Reply-To: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Lab
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 13:51:27 GMT

In article <l8lp43INNmnr@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
|> 
|> So people have gone to the great expense of buying and keeping slaves for
|> thousands of years for no reason? You test the limits of my little old
|> irrational mind. Why would anyone keep slaves if it was not worth the return? 
|> Certainly they had no moral qualms. It must have been economic.
|> 
They enslaved those of their implacable enemies that they didn't put to the sword.  Perhaps
as a way of keeping those ememies from rising again.
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Subject: Re: Age of Consent
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:41:13 PDT

In article <l90c4aINNrjo@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, on 17 Aug 1992 23:04:42 GMT,
tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:

>
>>In a libertarian society, such criminal behavior could
>>actually be prosecuted.
>
>Why is that? The behavior is of a pimp is illegal now. NO changes
>necessary. I can't see how in libertopia the police are going to be any
>more adept at catching criminals than they are now. Or should we just
>take a leap of faith as you have?
>
If you'd bothered to read the entire post, I stated why. Currently,
because prostitution is a crime, the prostitute is afraid to come
forward to complain because *he/she* is the one to be busted.

This sort of phenomenon is typical when victimless crimes are readily
prosecuted. Real criminals are able to prey on their victims because
those being victimized are afraid to come forward.

>>You have absolutely no evidence to support your irrational belief that
>>recognition of children's rights are open invitations to child
>>molesters and abusers.
>> What is clear is that the plank represents an
>>opportunity for children to end up with better guardians than they
>>might have with their natural parents. It also provides a means for
>>hildren who have abusive parents to escape that environment without
>>having to run away to the streets or become wards/prisoners of the
>>state. 
>
>Now who is making statments that have no evidence for support? You
>are speculating only. Most experts in the field I'm sure would disagree
>with your stand. I'm laughing big booming laughs when you call
>his line of reasoning "irrational." It seemed well reasoned to me.
>Or is anyone who disgrees with you or the libs by definition irrational?
>
It really can get quite annoying having to point out the obvious to you.
There's nothing speculative about what the platform states with regard
to children's rights. It's typical of you statists to point out some
problem that is rampant under your non-libertarian regime, and then try
to blame the problem on libertarian methods of dealing with the
situation.

If you have anything substantive to contribute, and can show some
signs that you actually read through the posts on a subject, I'll
reply to your messages. If not, I have better things to do with my
time.

    ====Jack====
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.elections.marrou,alt.elections.perot
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Summary: Doesn't sound logical
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:07:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.135127.21275@inel.gov>, whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray) writes:
> In article <l8lp43INNmnr@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:
> |> 
> |> So people have gone to the great expense of buying and keeping slaves for
> |> thousands of years for no reason? You test the limits of my little old
> |> irrational mind. Why would anyone keep slaves if it was not worth the return? 
> |> Certainly they had no moral qualms. It must have been economic.
> |> 
> They enslaved those of their implacable enemies that they didn't put to
> the sword.  Perhaps
> as a way of keeping those ememies from rising again.

I don't know about that.  First, killing people is the one sure way of
making sure you'd never have any more trouble from them.  Why clothe
them, feed them, shelter them, GUARD them, guard yourself FROM THEM,
just to avoid later trouble.  Meanwhile you are living in the same city,`
sometimes the same house with a future enemy.  There have been many,
many, many slave uprisings in the past, but none from the dead.

The second point is there are many instances of aggression for the
exclusive purposes of getting slaves.  People here in the US bought
them, making it economically feasible. 

I can't think of any reason that people would have slaves if it
wasn't for economic reasons.  All of the justifications I've read
here make no sense.

Someone said  "You get better work from willing paid employees"  - maybe,
but you pay them more.  I mean how many people get paid exactly
what it costs them in room,  board and clothing?

Look at the benefits of slavery:

Subminimum wage, subsistence really.

No loss of workers.  They can't wait until you train them, then up
and become slaves for someone else.

You can breed them and get more slaves for free - keep them, sell them
for cash.


People have had slaves since time began.  All efforts to wipe it out
have been long hard battles fought in the courts and even with guns.
The people who had slaves made a gigantic effort to keep them.  
There is no logical reason to do it unless it was to the benefit of
the slaveowner.


marc colten
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 5 Aug 92 10:55:59 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit,,,) writes:

>But slavery is completely irrational.  If you need labor, it always
>makes more sense to compensate some one for doing it willingly than
>to coerce them into doing it.  Perhaps if the slave traders had
>honestly provided such opportunities for willing laborers, they
>would have been even more successful.

Can someone explain to me how people can honestly believe this?
Starting with the ancient Egyptians, for example...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     "NP-complete do you call it, Sir?  I wish it were undecidable."
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: rsemenof@ee.ubc.ca (SEMENOFF ROBERT)
Subject: Squatting : request for advice or info
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 03:00:49 GMT

Has anyone out there ever squatted ?
I'm curious about the logistics and practicality.
Thanks.
-


Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit,,,)
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination (was: Libertarians
Reply-To: pandit@ssd.intel.com
Organization: SSD Intel Corp.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:00:56 GMT

In article 714251052@husc10, thong@husc10.harvard.edu (Theodore Hong) writes:
>
>You live in a small rural town that has two grocery stores.  Both store 
>owners decide that they don't want to sell to people whose last name 
>begins with an "E"; the rest of the population doesn't care (no one else's 
>name begins with "E").  What do you do?
>
>If you try to start your own grocery store, startup costs are high, and
>the market probably won't support a third grocery store.  You don't have
>a significant competitive advantage over the other two because your only
>added customer is yourself (the locals aren't bigoted, but aren't activist
>enough to boycott/whatever either).
>
>So what's the "correct" answer in this case?

Libertarianism would still be superior in this case.  In a democracy, the 
grocery-store owners could lobby politicians to pass laws against selling to 
people whose last name begins with "E".  Then, you would be in trouble, even if 
startup costs dropped, the market was able to support a third grocery store, and 
some people were willing to boycott the other owners.

---
|  Milind S. Pandit                           |  Standard disclaimers apply.  |
|  pandit@iwarp.intel.com                     |-------------------------------|
|  Operating Systems Engineer, iWarp Program  |   Who knows what evil lurks   |
|  Intel Corp., Beaverton, OR                 |     in the hearts of men?     |
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 12 Aug 1992 16:47:12 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 8JA@newcastle.ac.uk, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit,,,) writes:
>
>>But slavery is completely irrational.  If you need labor, it always
>>makes more sense to compensate some one for doing it willingly than
>>to coerce them into doing it.  Perhaps if the slave traders had
>>honestly provided such opportunities for willing laborers, they
>>would have been even more successful.
>
>Can someone explain to me how people can honestly believe this?
>Starting with the ancient Egyptians, for example...

I would say it's a complete psychotic break, but it's realy just
wish fullfillment. It's this word "rational" that's the problem.
Everyone's idea of what is rational is different. I think slavery
is extremely rational. Get a lot of work for cheap. It's work for
many many civilizations which is an existence proof for its usefulness.
Use up someones labor until they die. Slaves breed so we can get more 
slaves that way. Or we can always wage a war or sail to africa to buy a few more.
Seems very rational. Slavery may be wrong but's not irrational.
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 13 Aug 1992 22:38:59 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 17951@iWarp.intel.com, pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit,,,) writes:
>But slaves aren't cheap, and, when forced, won't do as much work as willing, 
>compensated laborers will.  There is more the question of what "slavery" means. 
>

So people have gone to the great expense of buying and keeping slaves for
thousands of years for no reason? You test the limits of my little old
irrational mind. Why would anyone keep slaves if it was not worth the return? 
Certainly they had no moral qualms. It must have been economic.
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Tax Evasion...a justifiable idea?
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:09:52 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug13.005938.14442@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> c3q@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>From: c3q@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
>Subject: Tax Evasion...a justifiable idea?
>Date: 13 Aug 92 04:59:38 GMT



>Any thoughts on the following?:


>The U.S. government, through taxation for purposes other than protecting the
>peace (i.e. welfare, the NEA, the National Parks, corn subsidies, etc. ad
>nauseum) is guilty of aggression. 

>Option 1: pay no taxes.
>(Of course, doing so is illegal, but legality just means that the masses or the
>mob-elected dictators declared something to be so).

>Option 2: As I am protected by the police and military (institutions which are
>necessary and serve everyone), I should pay a percentage of my true taxes
>reflecting the percentage of the budget spent on them.

>Option 3: I should pay all taxes and wait for a Libertarian president.


>Corollary question: am I under any obligation to tell the government that I'm
>protesting, and witholding taxes, or should I counter the agression as best I
>can (i.e. fight a guerilla war, not an 8th century well-mannered war).

>My feeling is that Option 2 is the most easilly defended, but that Option 1
>could be defended as a retaliatory blow (provoked by the many unconstitutional
>government incursions into my private life).  Either way, I think you'd have to
>be stupid to tell Big Brother your intentions.

>Disclaimer:  For the record:  I pay 100% of all the taxes I owe, and do not
>intend to cheat on my taxes, but am merely discussing theoretical arguments for
>doing so.

>-Travis

>                      
What did H.D.Thoreau do? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination (was: Libertarians
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:50:25 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit,,,) writes:
>In article 714251052@husc10, thong@husc10.harvard.edu (Theodore Hong) writes:
>>
>>You live in a small rural town that has two grocery stores.  Both store
>>owners decide that they don't want to sell to people whose last name
>>begins with an "E"; the rest of the population doesn't care (no one else's
>>name begins with "E").  What do you do?
>>
>>If you try to start your own grocery store, startup costs are high, and
>>the market probably won't support a third grocery store.  You don't have
>>a significant competitive advantage over the other two because your only
>>added customer is yourself (the locals aren't bigoted, but aren't activist
>>enough to boycott/whatever either).
>>
>>So what's the "correct" answer in this case?

>Libertarianism would still be superior in this case.  In a democracy, the
>grocery-store owners could lobby politicians to pass laws against selling to
>people whose last name begins with "E".  Then, you would be in trouble,
>even if startup costs dropped, the market was able to support a third
>grocery store, and some people were willing to boycott the other owners.

So how about a democracy with a constitution that included protections
for the rights of minorities?  [To take a purely hypothetical situation :-]
The unbigoted but lazy locals would accept this, since they would
recognize that they might be classed as a minority someday.  Only
the store owners would suffer, in that they would be forced to sell
to those nasty "E"s.  And the "E"s wouldn't starve to death.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: brian@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet)
Subject: Re: Tax Evasion...a justifiable idea?
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:18:50 GMT

Option 4.
Taxes=benifits gained-lossed incured [due to stupid regulation
this includes all loses direct and indirect, even lossed due to
mismanagement of the economy]
I love it, send a bill to the goverment..
I do owe you this, But I deduct this much in damages 
so in face in total you owe mis this much
If you don't pay I will be forced to persue legal actions
and whatever force nessecary to gain my is rightfully
mine..

To bad I am such a wimp.

I FLEX IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION!!! :)
VOLCANO

Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Reply-To: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 05:32:21 GMT


In a previous article, tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) says:

>In article 8JA@newcastle.ac.uk, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>>pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit,,,) writes:
>>
>>>But slavery is completely irrational.  If you need labor, it always
>>
>>Can someone explain to me how people can honestly believe this?
>>Starting with the ancient Egyptians, for example...
>
>I would say it's a complete psychotic break, but it's realy just
>wish fullfillment. It's this word "rational" that's the problem.
>Everyone's idea of what is rational is different. I think slavery
>is extremely rational. Get a lot of work for cheap. It's work for

In the first place, the Ancient Egyptians did _not_ use many slaves.  Egypt
was rather isolated from the rest of the world for much of its history. The
pyramids were built by local peasants, and were largely "make-work"
projects for the times when the peasants would have been idle.  

In the second place, slavery did make some sense, but was always recognized
as a very dangerous institution.  Spartacus was far from being the only
slave rebel the Romans (who DID use lots of slaves) had to deal with; at
several points, the entire island of Sicily was under the control of rebel
slaves.  Technology was what put an end to slavery, not humanitarian
impulses.
-- 
Technomad.  Portmanteau word from a novel I'm roughing out, about
a nomadic culture in a "cyberpunk" dark future.  I thought it up
before Cyberpunk 2020 ever came out.  On ISCA and Quartz, they
know me as a Flame-god.  cc697@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.guitar
From: aislas@leland.Stanford.EDU (Angel Islas)
Subject: Re: My thumb can't do the Hendrix
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 22:04:48 GMT


In article <#3_n-5c.kent@netcom.com> kent@netcom.com (Kent Crispin) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.161117.7781@cabezon.uucp> larryh@cabezon.uucp (Larry Huntley) writes:
>[about using thumb for fretting]

>OTOH, it isn't part of standard classical technique to use the left
>hand thumb, and nothing in the classical rep (that I know of, at
>least) requires it.  I have tried playing Hendrix on classical, and I
>gave up trying to use my thumb.  Usually there is an alternative

Awhile ago, I saw some facsimile editions of some pieces by Mauro
Giuliani that called for the use of the left hand thumb. I don't
recall the pieces, but I don't think they were any of his popular
guiatr compositions. The bodies of the pre-Torres classical guitars
were smaller and and their necks were probably thinner than on the
modern classical guitar, so I could see how this technique would be
more commmon back then than it is today. I've never seen anyone do
this even on a period instrument. I think your absolutely right Kent,
it probably would be easier to refinger it using a 1st finger barre.

>Maybe I'm weird, but I find that there's lots of Hendrix that I think
>sounds real good on a classical...

Have you heard Benjamin Verdery's CD where he palys Purple Haze on a
classical? Neat stuff.

---
Angel Islas
aislas@leland.stanford.edu




Newsgroups: alt.guitar