HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand(What yo gonna do?)
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:10:36 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: chris@keris.demon.co.uk's message of 30 Dec 92 10:19:05 GMT

In article <725710745snz@keris.demon.co.uk> chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) writes:


   >Some have suggested that we should not worry about the high-bred
   >collectivist capitalist of Europe and Asia. The argument is that
   >if they are willing to sunsidize us what's the problem?

&   Boy, I'm glad that I don't regard Britain as part of Europe <g>...

It is an island that is near the continent, no?

   >The wars of the 21st century are Economic in nature.
				 ^^^
&   We're not in the 21st Century yet - the wars *may* be, in your opinion
&   (and, OK, lots of other people's as well), Economic in nature...

Many make the argumnet that all wars have been and will be economic
in nature. I tend to agree. The difference now is that tactics
include hurling products, not just bombs.

   >There will be winners and losers.

&   That tends to be the nature of wars...

Given that, I would prefer to be on the winning side. Although
when one looks at the "losers" of WWII, you do have to wonder...

   >High-bred Collectivst Capitalist are far more
   >formidable opponents than Communist in these NEW type of wars.
   >They will not dry-up and blow away or cave in from their own
   >inefficiences, because being high-breds they have the freedom to
   >tweek their policies to engage our counter tactics.

&   Can you define this term 'high-bred'?  I haven't seen it before.  I
&   thought originally you were referring to the old 'Nobility', but now I'm
&   not sure...

Another term is mixed economy, where both capitalism and socialism
are put into practice.

   >I do have strong convictions. One is that I want to live in
   >a technologically advanced country where true freedom exist.

&   You & me both.  Trouble is I can't see one anywhere.

Sad but true.

-sjm
--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3039 comp.org.eff.talk:8340 alt.amateur-comp:485 soc.culture.usa:9473 alt.activism:20079
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 15:22:11 PST

In <4JAN199322094401@venus.tamu.edu>:

>In article <1993Jan4.143130.812@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utole
> >a wonderful summing up!  libertarianism as the ideology of the
> >frustrated children of the elite.  of course, none of the randites
> >believes in society (as has been painfully demonstrated on this
> >network), so making an argument, however sensible and consistent,
> >  about libertarianism as being cultivated by socio-economic variables
>>rather than the incredible reasoning powers of a few gifted bootstrap-pulling
> >horatio algers is bound to fall on deaf (and hostile) ears.
> >still, nice job, mr. shein.  expect, as you anticipate, dozens of
> >replies from "lower class libertarians" (who of course toiled their
> >"self-defeating ethic" of the underclass into which they were
> >born) who will see in their social
> >point of origin a refutation of your argument because they aren't
> >quite prepared to admit that in a libertarian society there'd be
> >no school loans, scholarships, etc. for people like them and so
> >they'd be preaching the religion of the mighty and asocial
> >individual while sweeping up the shit in the rich folks' back yard.
> >
> >tristan
>>
>Perhaps a reason your clever arguments as to why libertarians are "randites"
>fails is because libertarians are for the most part not randites and they
>know they aren't randites.  Also,  your argument that "lower class
>libertarians" don't count because they shouldn't be libertarians is utterly
>hollow,  not to mention insulting.  Can it be true that you actually think
>that's a valid argument?

It *is* insulting.  It requires a belief that all libertarians are only into
self-serving interests without regard what's best to society as a whole.  Well,
you can talk about social Darwinism all you want (and there are a lot of
examples in which our current government is guilty of promoting it), but no
amount of money can buy freedom from government control--short of buying an
isolated South Pacific island which no nation exercises domain over.

I believe in free people and free markets.  Period.  And I haven't even both-
ered to figure out who much that basic principle will save or cost me.  I don't
look at it that way.  Anyone who thinks that I'm selfish simply because I'm a
Libertarian is full of shit and not worthy of consideration anyway.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The World
	<1ic9pvINNt8@armory.centerline.com>
	<1993Jan6.085538.25962@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:35:16 GMT


>Er, perhaps not germane to the current discussion, but this brings to mind
>something Dick Boddie once wrote.  To paraphrase:
>   Equality in the garden would mean chopping the tops off of the
>   healthiest, fastest growing plants; geological equality would
>   mean leveling mountain ranges.

Gack, what a fascist mentality! And I suppose adding a little more
water and fertilizer to the section of the garden not doing well is
just anathema...let it wither, deliver god's justice to your carrots!

>He goes on to say he prefers liberty to equality.

How's he doing these days? Probably drooling in a garden somewhere
cashing govt checks...

The pathetic thing is that those who write things like this don't
understand what insects they are, if confronted with true power for
one second on these terms they'd be on their knees begging for
"equality". What cheap and tawdry hubris...too many Chuck Norris
movies I guess.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:55:38 GMT

In article <1ic9pvINNt8@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>You are trying to make more champaign by pouring it
>>onto the rug and sucking it up rather than drinking it straight from the
>>bottle.
>Please spare us your "reasoning" in metaphors.  They are easily turned:
>better everybody gets a swig than one person is drunk.

Er, perhaps not germane to the current discussion, but this brings to mind
something Dick Boddie once wrote.  To paraphrase:
   Equality in the garden would mean chopping the tops off of the
   healthiest, fastest growing plants; geological equality would
   mean leveling mountain ranges.
He goes on to say he prefers liberty to equality.

   Thanks awfully,
              Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The World
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:07:45 GMT


From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
>This is one example of bad people in private enterprise.  But here is
>another example.  Government schools cost an average of twice as much
>than non-governmental schools.

But a lot of that is due to the fact that most private schools are not
set up to take "special" students (the severely disabled, retarded,
etc) and can just refuse them. Public schools (as a system, and we're
talking about the price of the system even if an individual public
school is different) can not do this and has to spend the money to
accomodate students like this, by and large (up to a point, they don't
have to provide medical-like services.)

It's not shocking that being able to refuse the expensive cases, and
thereby stick the public schools with them, keeps costs down.

So the comparison may be severely flawed. The right way to handle that
may be another question entirely, but it does perturb backwards
looking analysis.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:59:24 GMT

In article <1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>Considering that room, board, and tuition at most top-notch universities costs
>close to the median family income in the US, its pretty obvious that
>Libertarianism would tie quality of education to family wealth as closely as
>it is tied in most third world nations (and used to be in most modern 
>industrial nations.)

It would never happen in this country.  Most people give a damn.  Despite 
ever increasing taxes, we are the most charitable nation on earth.  Americans
voluntarily give more of their income to charity  than any other people.

What makes you think that only government is willing to invest in your
education?  My girlfriend works in the 'Foundations and Grants' office
of a local private university, and before that, she worked in the same 
kind of office in the local state junior college.  You'd be surprised
at how much equipment is bought, how many buildings are built, and how many
programs are started just by identifing a wealthy individual or family in
the community and *asking* them to pay for it.  Even more surprising,
people actually walk in the door wanting to buy books for the library,
airplanes for the flight school, computers for the computer lab...

The feeling that "I gave at tax time" only decreases this tendency, yet
a lot of people still do it.  If we quit raping each other with 50%
tax bites, it would only get better.  Many people would be delighted to
fund student loans.  Heck, they fund scholorships now, and they don't
get that money back with low interest, they don't get it back with no
interest, they just don't get it back.  And they *like* it.

If people perceive a need, they will act to try to satisfy that need.  If
they had the resources to do it, they nearly always will fill the need
better than the government.

You assume that everyone is only out for themselves.  It sounds more and more
like it's *you* who are only out for *yourself*.  

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 22:12:28 GMT

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
: 
: So in summary what you're saying is a libertarian won't be an anarchy,
: something we don't disagree on (even tho you seem to love to point
: this out at every opportunity), but instead will be a bloated lawyer's
: paradise of court actions and no doubt we'll just cover the land with
: court houses run by the govt and that will be the major function of
: govt, managing lawsuit processing.
: 
: Well, no thanks. No thanks at all.
: 
I do not want the government to just manage lawsuit processing.  When
those that are held accountable for their actions are made to give
proper restitution, there will likely be much less lawsuits.  Also,
government processing of lawsuits would likely be more costly than
private, so many could be handled outside the governmental court systems.
(Arbitraters are one example of how two parties would settle a
dispute.)
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Sapphire on Libertarianism
Date: 7 Jan 1993 00:59:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Greetings,

William Sapphire in a recent editorial called Brian Mulroney's
advocation of criminalizing the interception and de-encryption
of private sendings "libertarian." I believe because libertarianism
bases everything on property rights and the declaration of 
these acts as violating property rights must therefore be      
libertarian.   

For clarification, Mulroney referred to anything sent via the
electromagnetic spectrum from which one could intercept without
trespassing or physical sabotage of some sort. It seems the  
"libertarian" conservative misconstrued what libertarians mean
by property or has he?     

What is the prevailing view on this among the libertarian folk 
(which I consider part of)? Do minarchists and voluntarists
hold different views?

As a voluntarist, I think Mulroney and Sapphire, who agrees
with Mulroney, are advocating infrining on my property rights
by telling me what I can and can't intercept using my own
private equipment--(or someone else's authorized for such
use). 

Virtually,

Edmund J. Ryan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The World
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:42:21 GMT


So in summary what you're saying is a libertarian won't be an anarchy,
something we don't disagree on (even tho you seem to love to point
this out at every opportunity), but instead will be a bloated lawyer's
paradise of court actions and no doubt we'll just cover the land with
court houses run by the govt and that will be the major function of
govt, managing lawsuit processing.

Well, no thanks. No thanks at all.

Did a lawyer dream this up or what?

From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
>ultimately, the government is responsible for enforcing responsibility.
>many times however, there mere threat of say, court action is enough to
>keep people in line. many people don't need threats to keep them in line
>in the first place. ("law abiding citizens") my point is this:

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1ic9pvINNt8@armory.centerline.com>
	<1993Jan6.085538.25962@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:19:50 GMT

PBH> == Patrick B. Hailey <doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com>

 PBH> Er, perhaps not germane to the current discussion, but this brings to
 PBH> mind something Dick Boddie once wrote.  To paraphrase:

 PBH>   Equality in the garden would mean chopping the tops off of the
 PBH>   healthiest, fastest growing plants; geological equality would
 PBH>   mean leveling mountain ranges.

All analogies are suspect, USENET analogies doubly so.

To use the second part of that analogy, if Beacon Hill were as high as it
once was, a walk through Boston's Back Bay would require a wetsuit.  The
"equality" generated by filling it in created a fairly large amount of real
estate, now home and/or workplace for many people, in a good example of how
creating infrastructures can facilitate the creation of wealth.
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 01:19:25 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

	Theory question: Assume that the fetus is a human being with full
liberties.  Suppose that the woman bearing the fetus did not wish to be
pregnant and does not wish to support it.  Does she have a right to 
defend herself against the fetus's forcing her to support it?

			-- Damien R. Sullivan  [X-) Kiljoy]
42 | AIXELSYD | Phoenix (Brand shall return to Amber!) | Neo-anarchy now!
Just because it's been done before doesn't mean it's right. | "Nee!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:34:11 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In article <BZS.93Jan8173041@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

|Bull, not off the specific event, but the severity was the result of
|cutting corners: They proceeded towards the harbor under questionable
|conditions to keep the $300,000/hour cash flow flowing

Has there been a second Exxon Valdeze accident that I have not heard
about?

By definition the Exxon Valdeze was heading out of port.  If it had been
heading into port it would have been empty.

The weather was fine.

The accident was caused by a drunk captain who turned over control to
an inexperienced younger officer.
-- 
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: dchristy@boron.cs (David Christy)
Subject: Good Samaritian ???
Organization: /home/hawikuh1/dchristy/.organization
Distribution: alt.politics.libertarian
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:01:28 GMT

Perhaps you are familiar with the old Biblical story called the 'Good
Samaritian'.  After thinking about it I wrote my own, similar story called
the 'Bad Samaritian'. I hope you enjoy it.

--------------------BEGIN--------------------------------------------------

DISCIPLE: Oh Master, who is truly a thief and who is not?

MASTER:	Once upon a time a traveler from Jerusulam was attacked by a band of 
thiefs, beaten, robbed, and left to die in the middle of the road. Not long 
after, a Pharisee passed by and shaked his head in shame at the traveler, the 
Pharisee knew that the traveler needed help, but he was late for a meeting 
so he moved onward ignoring the poor traveler from Jerusulam. A few minutes 
later a Levite passed by. He saw the injured traveler also, but he was late
getting home for supper and knew his wife would wack him over the head if
took any longer, so the Levite also passed by ignoring the poor injured 
traveler. About ten minutes later a Samaritian passed by, outraged at the 
sight of the injured traveler, he hunted down the Pahrisee and the Levite.
He then proceeded to force them to pay for a lodge and medical care of the
injured traveler, absolutely sure of his good deeds, the Samaritian took a 
cut of the pay for himself to insure he has the wealth to do more such good
deeds in the future and moved onward. Later that night, the traveler died.

MASTER: Now who would you say is truly the thief and who is not?

DISCIPLE: ... (answer omitted)

------------------END------------------------------------------------------

As for you fans out there, I'm sorry, but they just wouldn't let me publish
it in the Big Book. I couldn't quite understand them, but they complained 
something about, 

"... that it took and act of love and turned it into an act of revenge ..." 
"... that it took one victim and turned it into three victims ..."
"... it turned a humble Samaritian into a self appointed god 
     ... as if the real One couldn't do it Himself ..."

Oh and they were especially angry about this, 

"... It treated the traveler like dirt, 
     ... a nobody, who no-one would help unless they were forced to ..."

Hmmmmm, I wander what their talking about?  Oh well, I guess I'll never make
it as a writer; back to programming computers. 

dchristy@nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:07:52 GMT

In article <4171@randvax.rand.org> edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes:

>This begs the question, big time!  Who is it who prevents the initiation
>of force or fraud?  What's to prevent some non-libertarian heathen from
>amassing enough force to /make/ a government?  Do you know something
>about human nature I don't?

You appear to be confusing libertarianism with anarchy.  While some 
libertarians are anarchists, it is unreasonable to generalize this to all 
libertarians.  No one denies that some government is necessary to prevent 
individuals from using force and/or fraud to coerce others.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:29:06 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan12.001843.24434@netcom.com> lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) writes:

|In article <1993Jan11.134440.25280@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
|>In article <BZS.93Jan9194221@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
|>>
|>>So in summary what you're saying is a libertarian won't be an anarchy,
|>>something we don't disagree on ... but instead will be a bloated lawyer's
|>>paradise....
|>
|>Errrr, hate to jump in here, but are you saying we don't have a
|>"bloated lawyer's paradise" under the current system?

|Of course you're right, but those who insist on raving will conveniently
|ignore such sensible comments and go right on raving.

|Hans
I don't know about you, but for me, it is not so much the legal system
that I despise, but how it has been misused.
Though I do feel that some form of loser pays rule, will correct many of
the current flaws.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3420 comp.org.eff.talk:8636 soc.culture.usa:9735 alt.activism:20455