HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Inauguration Speech
Date: 7 Nov 1992 16:02:51 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Nov5.193548.29382@athena.mit.edu> hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang) writes:
>In article <1d9ou1INNmdr@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.215202.13460@EE.Stanford.EDU> bill@isl.Stanford.EDU (Bill Moore) writes:
...
>
>Now this is a distortion bordering on a lie.  Libertaria says the best
>way to run the world is through a minimum of coercion necessary to
>keep things fairly stable.  They don't want to *run* the world so much
>as let people run themselves, so long as they don't start killing one
>another, stealing from one another, or defrauding one another.
>
>And pray tell me, how does any other ideology run then?  If not by
>logic, then are you saying other ideologies are run by emotions?  That
>their ideological leaders shall emote to decide?
>
>>Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
>

That is not quite what I am saying. What I am saying is that the Republicans
and Democrats recognize that people are emotional beings. There policies
are based on this fact. They recognize that people act on the basis of their
emotions as well as their logic. One can see this in the difference between
thier campaigns and what there was of the Libertarians campaigns. The
Republicans appealed to peoples fears concerning immorality, the Democrats
to peoples material fears and perhaps their hopes.

The Libertarians appealed to peoples logic. Libertarians may respond to their
own fears in that they would ban first use of force.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The social contract
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:08:24 GMT
Organization: University of Florida CIS dept

In article <1d683iINN25b@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

>>The government does force me to accept its 'services' if I live here.
>
>Typical cart-before-the-horse thinking.  You agree to accept our government
>to live here.  Just as if you buy a condominium, you must join the condo
>association and abide by their rules and pay their fees.

Cart before the horse--you've got to be kidding. Here you are free to 
seek housing elsewhere--just try and defect from the US. In the condo
situation, if you choose not to join, no one punishes you. Try to 
not pay your taxes and also not get punished. You don't undersatnd
the concept of force. Try working without a Social Security number.
I am not free to refuse one--working without one is prohibited.

>>But this impiles that the government ultimately owns 'here'...
>
>Not at all.  The condominium analogy holds well here also.  The condominium
>association holds no title, and indeed could be disbanded or replaced by the
>owners of the condominiums.

The condominium owners have no say in property down the road. What you are
trying to do is form an analogy between private property and government
laws. It is flawed--the condo owners cannot physically punish you for 
not associating with them. To say that one could leave this country for
another is still a bad analogy even if it were true, based on the fact
that governments today have the condoned power of intitiatory coercion.

The proper government sees that the rights of all individuals are guaranteed.
This is not the case today.

>>... that it [government] is the default and 
>>final arbitrator of contracts.  A privelege individuals who don't
>>represent 'the government' do not have and did not agree to.  Therefore 
>>calling it a contract is to rob the word of any meaning.

>
>How is this pertinent to the point that as individuals we voluntarily accept
>a contract with the US government?
>
>Mike Huben

Voluntarily contract? What, by being born? This country was founded on the
principle that individuals were allowed to act by right, and the government
was allowed to act by permission. This principle has been reversed.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
From: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Paying for What Counts
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:53:21 GMT
Reply-To: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Organization: University of Washington

The Individual:
   1. eats - shits
   2. drinks - pees
   3. maintains 99 degrees fahrenheit
   4. Seeks "adrenaline" ("adrenaline" causes cells to release sugar, fat 
                          and protein into the blood -- a "foodless feed".)
   5. Avoids being "forced"
   6. rests

The People (government):
   1. Provide food and garbage collection
   2. Provide water and sewer
   3. Provide homes, clothes and heat
   4. Seeks "adrenaline" (political vision -- patriotism -- pride)
   5. Avoids being "forced" (self-defense etc)
   6. rests (do nothing)
  
The people have statistics -- they're more predictable and less
likely to change then the individual who's a "random sample" --
he might change overnight.
    ==The unpredictability of "the individual" is dangerous.==

Similarly, an individual`s "history" (if it's kept) has statistics -- 
over the long run, he's more predictable and less
likely to change then he'd be at any individual moment --
anyone might act "out of character".
    ==The unpredictability of "the moment" is dangerous.==

I gave up some freedom when I joined the "predictable" masses.
I could live remotely in Alaska or Nevada; but I like the city.  
Why?  Because it provides the 6 items above.

Yet, like a libertarian, I'd like to see the government
do less of #4 and #5 because I think the country
is collectively too paranoid, too neurotic, about
being the top military and economic power.

This news-group seems to advocate government reform -- not anarchy.
Our bureaucracy is the obvious result of true anarchy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Why????
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:59:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.123902.3696@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>I heard that the Libertarian Party tried addressing the question of
>why libertarianism hasn't caught on more by (probably in a workshop)
>dividing people into four types and coming up with arguments for
>each type. (It seems to be a simplified version of Jungian typology.)

I think the biggest reason libertarianism hasn't caught on is that nobody's
heard of the party.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: the most equitable economic system
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1992Nov3.163611.25075@bradley.bradley.edu>
	<37569@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:47:52 GMT

In article <37569@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
   Multinational corporations become so huge for one (or even possibly both)
   of two reasons

   1) They serve the consumers the best.

   2) They get governmental privleges.

Interestingly, the huge multinationals are getting smaller.  This is
one reason that many people feel insecure -- the huge corporations are
the ones that provide their workers with the most job security.  The
smaller, scrappier companies that are stealing business from the huge
corporations (and that the huge corporations are striving to become)
place far more demands on their workers.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: What's GNP, anyway?
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:07:54 GMT


In article <37569@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

>
>It is important to remember that the true wealth of a nation should be 
>measured by the amount of goods and services per capita, not comparative
>nominal wage rates. The rich in a capitalist society have earned their money
>by serving you the consumer best. Isn't that what you want?
>
>Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
>

I don't believe in nations.  And I could care less about the "wealth of
nations".  I measure the success of economies (starting with the world economy)
not by the amount of goods & services per capita or comparative nominal wage
rates, but what I would call "survival rate".  The closer to 100%, the better
the economic "performance".  But all this should be taken with a grain of NaCl,
as I have almost no training in economics.
(Maybe the "survival rate" would closely parallel the amount of "necessity"
goods & services per capita??)

Something I've been meaning to ask the econ majors about for a long time:
What is this per-capita income, anyway?  I know it's defined as GNP/population,
but some things about the figures disturb me.

We've all heard of countries with per-capita income in HUNDREDS of US dollars
per annum.  I assume it's safe to say, if you treat lodging in homeless
shelters or meals in soup kitchens (or other relief efforts) as income; that
anyone would LITERALLY starve to death in the United States with an "income"
of, say, less than $2000/yr. (which I think is a very low guesstimate).

It seems obvious to me that the, say, $500/year that a third world country's
per capita income might be quoted as, is failing to account for SOMETHING.  So
what is this something?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Lee    w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu

Don't blame me, I didn't vote!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and Libertarianism
Keywords: Objectivism Libertarianism
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 10:41:55 GMT

In article <Bx43qK.3xG@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
}Well, when I first read Schwartz's essay, I wanted to find out for myself
}whether it was based on true observations, so I went to a libertarian world
}conference in San Francisco.  The bottom line was that I concluded that 
}Schwartz was exactly right.

Hmm.  If that's the ISIL conference, I'm very surprised.

}I have known some libertians who were fairly sensible folks, but the 
}movement as a whole, and the leadership in general was and is (according to
}my readings and first-hand observations) as bad as Schwartz says.  I suggest
}you read the libertarian books and go to a conference to see for yourself
}what these guys think if Schwartz and I have not convinced you.
}
}--Brian

This is contrary to my experience.  The movement is nowhere near being
bomb-throwers like SDS or the Ayatollah, nor its leaders, unless you're coun-
ting Rothbard, who left for the Buchanan campaign, then Perot, then Bush,
all of which ships sank as soon as he got aboard.  Now if we can just get
him to join Peikoff in Clinton's camp, then perhaps we can kill two birds
with one stone...


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: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: The social contract
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:18:30 GMT

>>Mike, I think a more appropriate analogy is: after you carefully
>>reviewed the title to determine that it is association-free, no
>>restrictions, you buy the house and then your neighbors condo-ized it
>>with a majority vote.  Then they start telling you things like you can
>>no longer park your boat in the driveway, no more overnight guests
>>without association approval, etc.

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>Really?  Are you really more than 200 years old?  I suspect that the USA
>was in existence before any of us moved here (or were born here.)  Thus, your
>analogy isn't nearly as appropriate as mine.

If you own a condo, you can will it to someone, just in case you're in
that situation and think it will just evaporate upon your last breath.
I agree, in part, about it not being a good analogy, though, especially,
as I mentioned previously, in that condos don't "scale" well to
countries.

Just what level of individual freedom do you support?  Do you think the
level of individual freedom should be decided by a majority?

>>Here's where you usually say something like, "that's OK, it's easy to
>>get it changed back to the way you like it, personal freedom and all
>>that crap, just get a majority of the association to vote with you to
>>dissolve it."

>Sorry, but even most libertarians will acknowledge that the "association"
>(government) is necessary for defense.  I'm not likely to make an argument
>for disbanding the government.

Sorry, your twisting of words, then hoping no one notices that you
couldn't address the issue didn't work.  Let make the twisting harder
(give you a challenge):

Do you think that only individual freedoms that are supported by 50+% of
the citizens should be honored?

All your comments in this newsgroup seem to imply a yes.  If this is so,
do you have a problem with a government that mandated all income over
$50,000 be taxed 100% and everyone be entitled to a job (government, if
necessary) making at least $20,000?  I'm not asking if you think these
things would be good for the country, just whether a government of the
poeple should be allowed by their constitution to do it.

Regardless, I'm going to try to convince people that individual freedom
should be honored for both moral and utilitarian reasons, while you try
to convince people personal freedoms be damned if, in your opinion,
society "works" better.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Election results
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:52:09 GMT

Did *any* Libertarians win?

Is the 260k vote total for Marrou final?

Regarding Marrou's poor showing, I'd have to attribute it to Perot's strong
showing.  Although diametrically opposed to the Libertarians on many issues, I
think people who would have voted for Marrou voted instead for Perot because he
was perceived as having a chance of winning.

Then again, higher tallies for Libertarians in the past could simply be that
they were considered good "none of the above" candidates.

Sigh.  I'm glad Bush is out, and I didn't expect a major Libertarian showing,
but this is depressing.  Somebody needs to light a fire under the Party to
enlist new members, raise some money, and get the word out.

Either that, or pack it in.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Name recog. of the LP
Date: 7 Nov 1992 04:06:07 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

"Computer types generally seem to be libertarians"
If this is true, see the bottom of my .sig  :)

			-- Damien Sullivan
	42	AIXELSYD	Kiljoy  X-)
Bill Gates is twice as rich as Ross Perot.  Any ideas....?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1699 alt.politics.marrou:2158
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: This Stupid "LaRouche is a Lib" Thing
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:53:00 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov6.200613.2793@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes...
>     As I was trying to persuade people to vote Libertarian in this past 
>election, I had as many people as not ask me "Isn't Lyndon LaRouche a 
>Libertarian?" This is a *very* widespread belief.
>     Here are my questions:
>     (1) Has LaRouche ever been a Libertarian? If so, when and what did he do?
>     (2) If he has never been one, how did the rumor start? (and please, no 
>unsupported conspiracy theories)
>     I need to know this so I can get back to people. If anyone has info, 
>please post it -- I'm sure many other netters have the same questions.

LaRouche has never been a Libertarian.  He and his followers have
usually run as Democrats or Independents.
  I have never heard this rumor.  I recommend Dennis King's book,
_Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism_ for LaRouche's
history.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1690 talk.politics.misc:58661 sci.psychology:4301
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Politics and Personality Type (was Re: Why????)
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:05:37 GMT
Distribution: world
	<Nov.5.13.55.11.1992.13054@planchet.rutgers.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: josh@planchet.rutgers.edu's message of 5 Nov 92 18:55:12 GMT

In <YAMAUCHI.92Nov5171939@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu> Brian Yamauchi wrote:
> Based on the data above, one might expect conservatives to be SJs,
> liberals to be NFs, and libertarians to be NTs.
> 
> From purely anecdotal evidence, this seems to be a pretty decent first
> estimate.  There certainly seem to be more libertarians in the
> scientifical/technical (NT) fields in general, and computer science
> (NTP) in particular, than in the overall population.  Likewise
> political conservativism seems to be strongly correlated with
> religious conservativism and traditional values (SJ), and political
> liberalism with humanist academia and the fine arts (NF).

I think you're dead on target.  This agrees with my own observations, and
the NT/libertarian correlation is one I had noticed previously.

(Me?  Anarcho-libertarian hacker and really obvious ENTP)
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Election results
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:04:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.135209.10841@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>
>Did *any* Libertarians win?

Yes, at least five (4 state legislators in NH: 2 incumbents + 2 others,
and something called a "public weigher" in TX) and I'm sure there will
be more mentioned in coming days.....

>Is the 260k vote total for Marrou final?

No.  At this point it looks like the final total will be fairly close
to 300,000 but whether it will be as much as 350,000 remains to be
seen...... many areas won't count our votes for as much as 20 days.

--
        Robert Bickford                       rab@well.sf.ca.us
 Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party     /-------------------------------------\
      of Marin County (CA)         | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
Member, CA State Central Committee \-------------------------------------/
From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: The final results!
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:14:28 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

Well, it's been a week sinc ethe election and the local media has still not
even admitted the existence of anyone beyond Bush/Clinton/Perot.

Can anyone provide me with the results of the election including all the
candidates??  I am interested primarily in how Marrou/Lord did, but would
find it usefull to see any results on people like Bo Gritz as well.

Has anyone seen a full accounting??

I would also be interested in how the Libertarians did in other elections
than the Presidency.

Anyone??

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@cs.uofs.edu         |  This space would be left intentionally blank
                              |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1686 rec.arts.startrek.current:17726 alt.politics.bush:13392 alt.politics.clinton:16168
From: wjolitz@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Inauguration Speech
Date: 6 Nov 1992 20:42:41 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


Agreed, this does not belong in the star trek discussion group. However,
I also noticed that while the libertarian point-of-view and the bush supporters
are cross-posted, the clinton supporters were not. In the spirit of equal
time and fair play, I have added the clinton group. Now you can all cross-post 
among yourselves, while the Star Trek fans beam out of this discussion.:-)

Enjoy.

Lynne.
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Mod rule.
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:22:18 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <10438@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM
(Mark Wilson) has a signature quote:
>Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call
>itself a government.

Once again, the fundamental flaw of anarchist libertarianism and objectivism
rears its head: the fact that there are other people in the world, and they
may not agree with you.

Those other people have power.  They will associate.  The only way to control
their power is for them to control it theirselves, or eliminate them.

The instruments of prettying governments are well known.  Constitutions,
rights, representation, law, etc.  Contracts will not suffice: the mob will
take no notice of them.

Mike Huben

"Enough of acting the infant who has been told so often how he was found under
a cabbage that in the end he remembers the exact spot in the garden and the
kind of life he led there before joining the family circle."   Samuel Beckett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: The social contract
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:04:45 GMT

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>It is trivial to "defect" (emmigrate) from the USA.  No one punishes you
>for not immigrating to the USA.  Let me spell the analogy out for you:
>condominium is like nation.

Mike, I think a more appropriate analogy is: after you carefully
reviewed the title to determine that it is association-free, no
restrictions, you buy the house and then your neighbors condo-ized it
with a majority vote.  Then they start telling you things like you can
no longer park your boat in the driveway, no more overnight guests
without association approval, etc.

Here's where you usually say something like, "that's OK, it's easy to
get it changed back to the way you like it, personal freedom and all
that crap, just get a majority of the association to vote with you to
dissolve it."

By the way, here in South Florida, at least, your analogy "condominium is
like nation" would signal a serious decline for the United States.  The
newspapers are calling it a crisis, so many condos managed by
incompetent or fraudulent associations, discovering they can't afford
ordinary repairs like new roofs.

Finally, it is a preposterous stretch to say that moving out and selling
your condo to avoid its association is like emigration to escape
democratic tyranny.