HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Electronic transactions
Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:06:29 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1h894nINNhnd@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1gt8obINNpqn@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>> >No way, no way, no way. The problem with electronic money is that it's
>> >very, very easy to trace. Do *you* want the government to have an exact
>> >record of your every transaction?
>> 
>> I'm amazed that this statement has stood unchallenged for several days on
>> a network of computer users.
>> The technology for untraceable transactions has been around for a few years.
>> There was an article about it this past year in Scientific American.  It is
>> premised on public key encryption being impractical to break.
>
>Just pay no attention to the men behind the curtain in sci.crypt, who have
>been discussing for over a month now the government's express plan to have
>everybody register any private key they ever use, or else risk being convicted
>of the new crime of illegal encryption of data.

While I haven't read that string, I strongly doubt that any such proposal
would be enacted or found constitutional.  It sounds like a scare, rather
than a real threat.

Civil libertarians (such as the ACLU, of which I am a member) would oppose
such a law rather vehemently on first ammendment grounds, let alone privacy
grounds.

Mike Huben

"Nothing is more humbling than to look with a strong magnifying glass
at an insect so tiny that the naked eye sees only the barest speck
and to discover that nevertheless it is sculpted and articulated and
striped with the same care and imagination as a zebra.  Apparently it
does not occur to nature whether or not a creature is within our range
of vision, and the suspicion arises that even the zebra was not designed
for our benefit." -- Rudolf Arnheim
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:02:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.190559.12153@cbnews.cb.att.com> jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
}In article <1992Dec20.055848.410@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>The legal mind behind this is the infamous anti-porn jurisprude, Catherine
}>MacKinnon, feminist law professor at the University of Michigan.
}
}Jurisprude...I like it.  Thanks for creating a wonderful new label.

I like it, too, but that's actually the word for a legal philosopher.  I
discovered it in the Reason magazine story about MacKinnon et. al. right
after Justice Thomas's confirmation hearings.  It remains a wonderful
double entendre.

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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Are recent Libertarian crusades not libertarian?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:43:29 GMT

In article <1h537tINN1r3@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}In article <1992Dec19.102325.12203@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>First of all, most Congressmen aren't Jews or women, so limiting their terms
}>of office would tend to make it more possible for these groups to break into
}>the legislative cartel.
}
}Let me get this straight.  You are in favor of a law that limits the rights
}of citizens to choose to elect the representative they want as often and
}for as long as they want?  Yet you wouldn't want a law that limited choice
}in any other commodity?

This isn't how I view the matter.  I see it not as a matter of the rights
of citizens to choose a representative, but a matter of cutting the power
of the Patricians of the American Empire, the legislature.  I don't believe
that in any de facto sense that these are chosen by the people.

}>The main effect I see is merely to break the cartel, which is a good in
}>itself.
}
}How does this break some cartel when all it would do is increase the rate
}of turnover in the same positions?

It increases the incentives for defection, to put it in prisoner's dilemma
terms.

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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Labor Standard
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:19:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.054235.18164@ornl.gov> jfmcbray@sacam.OREN.ORTN.EDU (Jason F McBrayer) writes:
>Ken Arrondee sez:
>	The problem with the currency is that it's just like having the
>	government print paper.
>With regard to the labor standard, in which a currency unit=1 hr of
>unskilled labour.  I haven't worked out how everything would work with
>this system, but it's fairly clear that inflation is impossible, or at
>least, unrestrained inflation.  Look at it this way...inflation has to do
>with the relationship between the amount of currency floating around and
>the amount of goods floating around.  Labour differs from other
>commodities in that goods are produced by labour.  Therefore, MOST of the
>time, the amount of goods should increase at the same pace as the amount
>of currency.

Clarification: the problem with a labor-based currency is that it's just as
easy for the government to screw things up by changing their minds in the
middle.  Why would you trust a government's promise to keep the currency units
1-per-hour any more than you'd trust a government's promise not to print
paper?
--
"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 (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Mary Ellen Carter Salvage Crew
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:19:35 GMT
	<1gqau1INNnsg@armory.centerline.com> <XBV=ar+@engin.umich.edu>

In article <XBV=ar+@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
   >If you mean gold-backed dollars, you are sadly mistaken, as history shows.
   >When a government says a dollar is backed by 1/35th oz gold, it can claim
   >a different quantity the next day.

   That defeats the purpose of a gold standard. Presumably, the value of a
   bill in gold would be printed on the bill (as in, "This bill is redeemable
   at the Federal Reserve for 1/500th ounces of gold.")

Let's see, how did it go?  Oh, yeah,
	Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice ...
--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# !egassem terces eht dnuof ev'uoY  !snoitalutargnoC 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 07:53:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.160310.10843@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>However a murder is much more likely to get caught [than a rapist]

This is pretty much off-topic, and I'm not even sure of my figures, but didin't
I recently hear that in very round numbers, about 10% of rapes are ever solved,
and only 15% of all murders?  That would, indeed, mean a murderer is *much*
(50%) more likely to get caught, but it's still not very likely.

On the whole, crime is a pretty safe hobby or career in the U.S.  *Real*
crime, that is, crime where people are hurt or relieved of their 
property.  Now, dropping a hit of LSD and becoming a peacful participant
in a Gratefull Dead concert is real likely to get you a 50 year
mandatory minimum sentence in a federal prison, during which time you
will see *many* murderers and rapists come in, do their time, and
get out.  But real crime, well, like I said, it's pretty safe.

Priorities, you know.

  Thanks awfully,
              Patrick
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:00:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.140943.24362@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

}Why in your opinion are laws against assualt (in the legal sense of the word,
}meaning being threatend) ligitimate?  Then apply this reasoning to
}repeated sexual advances.  This first one is ok, after that what's the
}point, the woman has already said, "no".  The point may not be to get a
}date, but to intimidate...  Very much like assault.

Laws against assault are fine.  I merely contend that "sexual harassment"
laws aren't in this category.

Apply this reasoning to flipping a woman off.  Then the first one would be
fine, but if she objects after that, then you're guilty of assault?!?  I
don't buy it.

I don't see the assault involved in propositioning a woman, either.

}Not really, ask the question this way.  Did the woman make it clear to you
}that the sexual advance was unwelcome?  Did you continue to do it
}regardless of her objections.  This is pretty clearly a very factual
}crime.  

"Did the woman make it clear to you that flipping her off was unwelcome?  Did
you continue to do it regardless of her objections?"  This isn't a crime,
it's a vice.

}>}Rape is very different from most types of assault.  Assult is generally
}>}directed against an individual, while rape is a crime directed against a
}>}group.  Its the difference between murder and genocide.
}>
}>I'm not persuaded of this.  Individuals are always the victims.  In some
}>cases, the motive may be hatred of all women, but in others it may be
}>hatred of the particular victim.
}>
}
}Well the group of individuals that this tends to happen to see it as a
}crime against their group rather than against themselves as individuals. 
}Most crimologists agree.  Commonly rape is directed at strangers.  

Motivation for rape is now determined by what the victims believe?  Why
not extend this to all crimes!  Why bother trying to prove mens rea, that
the offender had a guilty mind, and intended harm!  Just ask the victim
what she believes!

}>}Exactly!  Living togother and having sex is an agreement between two
}>}people, marriage is an agreement between a couple and society.  In fact
}>}the definition marriage includes that it be public.  The signing a
}>}contract, living toghethr, and having sex doesn't need to be.
}>
}>If that's marriage, I'm against it.  I'd prefer to let marriage to be a
}>private matter.
}>
}
}I don't understand, elaborate.

I don't see any reason why there should be a special form of contract for
a heterosexual couple that cohabitates, has children, etc., between the
couple and the State.  Marriage should be a contract between the two parties,
husband and wife (hetero or homosexual), period.


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." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 21 Dec 1992 04:23:50 CST
From: <U16244@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian enclaves overseas?
Distribution: world

  I wonder what the secession laws in the U.S. are like now???  Because
there are some states in the U.S. largely devoid of population that
would fit the bill pretty well if they could somehow be removed from
Papa Uncle Sam.  In particular, I would nominate Wyoming Or Alaska.
If I remember my demographics correct( I'm a geography major ) these
two states are somewhat liberterian-leaning, at least in spirit now.
Alaska even has no state income tax and sales tax if I remember correctly.

  -djh
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Buying Au
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:22:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.223747.222@samba.oit.unc.edu> Harry.Johnson@launchpad.unc.edu (Harry Johnson) writes:
>
>I'm interested in buying gold, not in coin form, but in boullion.  I
>called my bank today and they said that they don't sell gold except in
>coined form .  I have a couple of thousand dollars that I'm interested in
>converting and hoarding (i.e., I want it to be in my house, not in a vault
>somewhere). 
>
>Where can a person buy gold in lump form?  Also, how much am I likely to
>pay in taxes and commission?  Has anybody reading this group done this before?

i've been looking into this as well, due to my concerns. why do you want
bullion instead of coins? for a couple of thousand dollars you can only
buy a few ounces. bars are more of a pain because they have to be assayed
before they can be sold. coins are much simpler and are priced based on
their gold content, not the face value. much easier to re-sell too, from
what i have been told.

you probably don't want to buy from your bank as their premiums *might* be
too high. shop around. as for taxes, depends on the state. where i am,
state sales tax is waived for purchases over $1,000, because that is considered
the minimum for the purchase to be an investment.

good luck!

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: gold
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:01:38 GMT

In article <1gqc54INNntj@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.033529.22840@fx.com> raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael) writes:
>>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>
>>>There's a real question of whether any nation could compete any more with a
>>>gold-based currency.  No matter what the exchange rate, the other nations of
>>>the world could simply print currency to buy out all the gold of the GS
>>>nation.
>>
>>Not with floating exchange rates, they couldn't. Example: Translyvania starts
>>printing billions of drachmas, which used to be equivalent to dollars. They
>>try to convert them to US dollars, but drachmas are now a glut on the market,
>>and they end up getting only one dollar per 100 million drachmas, a
>>reasonable indicator of the new relative buying powers of the two currencies.
>>With which they can buy very little gold.
>
>Transylvania prints a billion drachmas, and buys gold-backed currency

only if people are stupid -- i don't know what the hell a drachma is, 
and i wouldn't buy any number of them for any exchange rate unless i
knew exactly what they were worth. this is the basis for most currency
exchange. and if the people with the gold-backed currency don't want to
buy drachmas, transylvania can do nothing.

>until
>people find out that they have more drachmas than they used to.  The value of
>the drachma falls, and falls further than it should because people have the
>Transylvania-inspired-impression that the market is flooded by drachmas even
>worse than it is.  Transylvania then buys back its drachmas with a portion of
>the gold-backed currency it sold them for, holds an elaborate drachma-burning
>ceremony to reinstill faith in the drachma, and nets alot of gold.
>
>Iterate over most of the nations of the world.  Soon, gold-backed currencies
>are exhausted.
>

even if it worked once, you can't just "iterate". there are too many
other factors involved. your assumption is that all currency traders
are morons. i believe otherwise.

>Market hysterhesis and manipulation is only one of the real factors your
>overly simplistic analysis (and most other recently posted libertarian
>styled economic analyses) omit.

pot calling the kettle black alert!

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarians as villains
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 29 Dec 92 23:18:12 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

aa396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill Henley) writes:
> 
> The Libertarian Party may not have made much headway in this
> year's election, but its ideas seem to be gradually penetrating
> public consciousness, judging by one slightly perverse signpost;
> I'm starting to see more cases where opponents of freedom find it
> worth the trouble to denounce libertarians and libertarianism by
> name.  (Used to be if libertarians were noticed at all they were
> regarded as harmless cranks.)  
> 
> Just out of curiosity, can anyone else report instances where
> libertarians and libertarian ideas, explicitly identified as
> such, have come in for criticism and attack in the mass media?

here in Pheonix (where i've been spending my Christmas break) the
papers have specifically mentioned libertarians. in an answer to the
question "why is your paper so biased toward ____" they listed the
political persuasions of several of their editorial staff. one 
considered himself a libertarian. there was also a good article on
privatization of a proposed highway system that has turned into
a bit of a money pit... i think i like Arizona.

jason

--
  "More life, more love, more freedom, more choice!" - MORTAL, Painkiller
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:04:13 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
> jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
> >bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:

> >Why not treat rape like any other form of assault?  I am very 
> >nervous about making rape a capital crime (or indeed anything a 
> >capital crime), since I don't trust the State to make such 
> >decisions, for reasons of both incompetence and malice.  Check out 
> >Martin Yant's book _Presumed Guilty_ for well-researched examples.
> 
> Rape is very different from most types of assault.  Assult is 
> generally directed against an individual, while rape is a crime 
> directed against a group.  Its the difference between murder and 
> genocide.

that's a very talented rapist you've got there...

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` Democrat:    Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,`
`,` Republican:  Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems.  `,`
`,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems.        `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Views? :
Date: 28 Dec 92 06:08:37 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <1992Dec28.045547.4572@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) 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. 
>
>because if there is an economic or political panic, i want the stuff
>with intrinsic value *in my hands*, not in my broker's safe. is that
>so hard to understand? if i have ten pounds of gold (worth about $50,000
>or so), i can stick it in a backpack and go wherever i want in the
>event of an emergency. with oil i cannot do that.
>
>when the bottom falls out, your broker is going to be the first one
>in the breadline. i'd not trust my savings to his paper.
>
>>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?!
>
>irrelevant.
>
>>	Stop with silly tanker stuff.
>
>only if you tell me how, after my broker stops answering his phone, and
>after i decide i want to leave the country because of the riots, and
>after the US dollar devalues by 90%, i am supposed to take my savings
>out of the country *without* a tanker.
>
>--
>charles

	You can't.  But there is no reason for the United States to persue
economic policies which benefit tratorious people who leave the country
during bad times.

--JMB
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Freedom Daily Quote
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:41:13 GMT

In article <168C1C030.BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Brian Lewis) writes:
>There's a publication called Freedom Daily, which is a monthly calendar
>with a couple of libertarian essays in the front, and a quote for each
>day.  (Future of Freedom Foundation, P.O. Box 9752, Denver, CO 80209.)
>It's a breath of fresh air each day.

You forgot to mention that it only costs $15 a year!  It is a wonderful
little magazine.

  Thanks awfully,
           Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian